[LS]

I agree but there is more. FWIW, Frank Luntz’s focus group was mediocre for Trump, but the “u decides” utterly crashed during some of Cankles harangues.

But my bigger point is the one I made pre-debate yesterday. It doesn’t matter who “won” because all the social media polls say Trump won by a big margin. It’s like the old saw, it’s not who votes that counts, but who counts the votes.

Trump wins that just as he did in the primaries.

[Ohioan]

I think you are essentially correct in what matters most, at this point. However, as a matter for longer term comfort, he should not have given her a pass on her suggestion that his tax cut was "giving" more to the rich. Letting people keep more of their earnings is not trickle down anything. It merely reflects the right of people to the fruits of their labor, and at least partially removes a disincentive to work harder & more productively.

Also, Trump needs to more clearly inject the obvious economic benefit in backing the Police--as Hilary (despite her glib straddling of the related issues) obviously does not--in Black neighborhoods, as a boon to increased economic activity & credit-worthiness, etc. This would only require a strong sentence or two, and would plant a very useful awareness helpful to both a neighborhood & Police/Community relations.

[jazminerose]

Fox had the dial test lady on this morning. What jumped out at me, as it always does, is that the Independents continue to track tightly along with the Republicans each and every time.

Trump has the Independents.

[enumerated]

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.