Posted on 09/27/2016 6:47:38 AM PDT by libertarian27
Trump and Clinton debated each other for the first time last night. Here’s how I score the night.
Clinton won on points. She had more command of the details and the cleaner answers. Trump did a lot of interrupting and he was defensive. If this were a college debate competition, Clinton would be declared the winner. I call that victory on the 2D chess board. But voters don’t care about facts and debating style. They care about how they feel. So let’s talk about that.
For starters, Trump and Clinton both seemed “presidential” enough. That mattered more for Trump. We haven’t seen him off the teleprompter lately. So Trump passed that test by being sufficiently serious.
Clinton looked (to my eyes) as if she was drugged, tired, sick, or generally unhealthy, even though she was mentally alert and spoke well. But her eyes were telling a different story. She had the look of someone whose doctors had engineered 90 minutes of alertness for her just for the event. If she continues with a light campaign schedule, you should assume my observation is valid, and she wasn’t at 100%.
Some will say Clinton outperformed expectations because she didn’t cough, collapse, or die right on stage. That would be true if she also looked healthy in general, and her campaign schedule from here on out is full. We’ll know more this week, based on her schedule.
Clinton’s smile seemed forced, artificial, and frankly creepy. I’m already hearing on Twitter that mentioning a woman’s smile is sexist. I understand the point. But when someone goes full Joker-face and tests the uncanny valley hypothesis at the same time, that’s a bit different from telling a woman to “smile more.” My neighbor Kristina hypothesized that Botox was making her smile look unnatural. Science tells us that when a person’s mouth smiles, but their eyes don’t match the smile, they look disingenuous if not creepy. Botox on your crow’s feet lines around your eyes can give that effect. But whatever the reason, something looked off to me.
To be fair, Trump’s physical appearance won’t win him any votes either. But his makeup looked better than I have seen it (no orange), his haircut was as good as it gets for him, and he was otherwise his normal self that some voters hate and some like.
But the most interesting question has to do with what problem both of them were trying to solve with the debate. Clinton tried to look healthy, and as I mentioned, I don’t think she completely succeeded. But Trump needed to solve exactly one problem: Look less scary. Trump needed to counter Clinton’s successful branding of him as having a bad temperament to the point of being dangerous to the country. Trump accomplished exactly that…by…losing the debate.
Trump was defensive, and debated poorly at points, but he did not look crazy. And pundits noticed that he intentionally avoided using his strongest attacks regarding Bill Clinton’s scandals. In other words, he showed control. He stayed in the presidential zone under pressure. And in so doing, he solved for his only remaining problem. He looked safer.
By tomorrow, no one will remember what either of them said during the debate. But we will remember how they made us feel.
Clinton won the debate last night. And while she was doing it, Trump won the election. He had one thing to accomplish – being less scary – and he did it.
She was blinking like mad most of the time but close to the end she stared straight ahead, eyes wide open, without blinking for several seconds, looked odd.
Well, I was hoping anyway ..... better luck next time!
Hubris induced complacency sunk Romney.
That’s not good news, because too much use of stimulants can cause neurological problems and other medical issues, we now know from the way Dr. Theodor Morell treated Adolf Hitler with methamphetamines at times. Is it possible she may be taking a mild form of methamphetamines and took it again this morning?
This morning, I'm reading the polls and FR and getting quite a different view. Interesting, especially the polling. It's like I saw a completely different debate.
Best analysis I've seen so far is on this thread. Trump held his fire on Benghazi, etc ... perhaps waiting on a less biased moderator? One that will allow Trump to get a point across without correcting him? Makes sense, this is a marathon, not a sprint.
Definitely tipped-off.
As reinforcement of that notion we all noticed NO hesitation from The Witch on ANY of the questions, NO contemplation. JUST SCRIPTED RESPONSES. Nothing impromptu or spontaneous. Hitlery was a Robot, a programmed Machine.
No one -- especially no one in her ill-mental/physical condition -- could possibly have been that prepared and rehearsed for questions she supposedly did not know beforehand.
Hitlery did nothing but smile like The Joker when Trump hit her with impromptu responses and charges. Her response: Glazed-over creepy frozen clown-smile.
She was presumably explicitly instructed NOT to engage Trump under any circumstance and remain silent during his counter-attacks (as Lester Holt ran adequate interference for her, or cut short Trump's riff.)
The lasting impression of the evening was Hllary's creepy frozen smile-mask and her smugness. NOT endearing. And it did NOTHING to advance her un-likeability factor.
‘he solved for his only remaining problem.’
Ha! That’s how the MIT guys I used to pal around with phrased it—solve for. Good times...
‘I’m not so sure Trump won the election last night.....’
On this point you and Adams agree 100%. (I.e.: Adams came straight out and said Trump lost...the debate.)
Most Snap polls show Trump winning debate in a landslide!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3809204/Most-snap-polls-Trump-winning-debate-landslide.html
Agree completely. I had hoped for a big knockout blow (or Hillary! meltdown), but ultimately, this is better. Trump accomplished what he needed to get done. He can be stronger in the other debates if need be. But while she looked better, spoke better, etc. reflecting her debate prep, he STILL came across better.
Perhaps the forced blinking wards off potential seizures?
I agree. I never felt that he was going to be able to deliver a knock out punch. She has been around the block too many times to get caught off guard. The fact the debate actually happened indicated they had an extremely high confidence level she would not choke or have a health event.
His slow and steady approach is definitely winning this race. Each week he will continue to pull further and further away as she has shot her entire wad.
Yep. Hillary’s goal last night was to put a stake in Trump’s heart, and she failed. Now she’s back to square one.
Trump’s goal last night was not to resemble the bogeyman that Hillary’s campaign has been trying to make him out to be, and I think he succeeded pretty well.
Clinton was so scripted that it is difficult to believe that she did not have the questions in advance.
After all the pre-debate buildup of her health problems, I was surprised that she looked as well as she did.
I really wished I had bought stock in Botox producing companies. Look at any picture of her anywhere and then look at her unfurrowed brow during the biggest smiles.
They must have used horse needles worth of Botox.
Scott Adams’ point - winning the election by losing the debate - is right on the money, but technical. I’d say the same about your win vs “win” point. Right on the money, but technical.
By technical, I mean that it’s about perceptions rather than policy - Trump not appearing scary, or too orange, Clinton not appearing unhealthy, the importance of appearing to win vs actually winning on points.
My difference with this is that there is also something deeper going on that is not about appearances:
Yes, Clinton demonstrated that she was more articulate, and more experienced and had a better command of factual details.
But by letting her and Holt go on and on, basically unopposed, articulating all her leftist experience, in detail, listing how many countries she’s been to, etc. Trump was handing her the rope with which to hang herself, and she did it.
He said it a few times - Yes, you have 30 years of experience, but it’s failed experience. Yes, you can talk the talk, but why do all of the problems we face persist or get worse on your watch?
She basically promised that she would raise taxes, increase regulations, hobble security and law enforcement, attack the 2nd ammendment, etc etc,
She would grow the government, defend the corrupt status quo, fight for all her life long leftist causes. He let her rattle on about it.
So, I think he may have truly won the debate on substance, not just by managing optics, - by exposing what she really stands for and what she would do as POTUS.
All you need to know about this article is that Adams disabled his comments section.
LOL. Newspapers do that, too, when they don’t want contradictory opinions to be seen.
You raise a point I failed to see. Trump may have been letting her “run” with the bait (a term from my old deep sea fishing days.) Let her think she really has it and speed off at 50 mph and then when there is plenty of give in the line, SET THE HOOK.
We shall see in the next debate. If he does as you suggested then you, my FRiend, are a dang GENIUS. Can you imagine if he just gives her more line in Number Two and then just unloads the whole game on her with five minutes to go. Watching that fish feel the hook will be priceless. A moment I will cherish forever.
But it is probably best to let it go and just win the election. He really needs to remember the reason he is there is to take her voters. Set the hook and gaff her on Nov. 8th.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.