Posted on 09/29/2016 8:04:16 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The vast majority of pundits declared Hillary Clinton the decisive winner of this week’s debate. This includes both conservative and liberal pundits. For instance, Douglas Schoen of Fox News wrote:
“She was ready for all of his quips with a litany of detail that may have bored the viewer at points, but showed why she is winning on qualifications, experience and temperament in every poll.”
However, most post-debate online polls are breaking for Donald Trump as the winner. These polls are not rigorous, in that anyone can vote in them multiple times, regardless of whether they would vote in the actual election. Still, some of these polls have hundreds of thousands of votes. They provide significant evidence of enthusiasm for Trump’s debate performance and suggest that the pundits are wrong about Clinton dominating the debate.
So what explains this difference between the polls and the pundits?
As an expert on the role of emotional intelligence in public life, including in debates, I have long observed that mainstream media commentators don’t give sufficient credit to the role of emotions in shaping public perceptions. Understanding the impact of emotions in politics is key for making an accurate prediction of how debates will impact voting....
(Excerpt) Read more at huffingtonpost.com ...
I have never trusted anyone named Gleb.
It’s the same reason Ted Cruz lost. The rigors of the academy trained his emotions and Cruz responds to issue from that cerebral mindset.
Trump is much more passionate and warmer.
This is both reason and emotion. My emotional reaction to watching Hillary Clinton “debate” alone is enough to decide my opinion of the victor. I expect it is the same with most.
As far as the pundits’ opinions, they are as meaningful as the noise coming out of monkey cages. But the monkeys don’t proclaim their genius because of the noise.
True. I once thought that Trump was the better candidate and Cruz the better President for that reason. I have since concluded that Trump will also make the better President, for the same reason Reagan was an excellent President, because he is determined to lead the people without dictating to them.
All I could think of when I saw Clinton was what nasty pieces of work the Clintons are and her arrogant, condescending smirk made it even worse. Trump seemed much more sincere.
According to the writer, Trump supporters are choosing his “style and charisma” over her “substance” and the underlying tone to me was that Trump supporters are too shallow in intellect to go for the “substance” Clinton offers.
Of course we need the pundits to tell us what the candidates are really about because we’re just too stupid to see how great Hillary is. Nevermind how much blood is on the hands of her and her spouse, nevermind that almost every word coming out of her mouth is a lie. Hillary has the experience, the statistics and the substance.
Same article different day.
Trump is winning because we’re driven by emotion, we’re distracted by shiny famous objects and we’re too dumb to know what’s good for us.
We can only hope(and pray). My Facebook ‘friends’ are way out there with Trump. I correct them with information. When they express a rare positive feeling about Hillary I reply with “Lock her up!” That really fries them.
Good thoughts.
Mrs Bill methodically filed out the application form while Donald Trump went straight in to the interview.
Cruz was my man at first but he came to seem not to have what it will take to fight the Bureaucracy and the gope/Democrat/lobbyist Congress.
Micro expressions.
My wife has been watching “Lie to Me” and started reading on the real guy, and his works. She takes note and shares her observations.
Hillary Clinton hates you. Even when Lester asked her a question that was right up her alley, She had this fleeting look of pure disdain and contempt.
Everytime her gaze flashed the camera, she pierced through it and into the eyes of the American and she has nothing but spite for us.
“How DARE you question me” is her default attitude. And if she could spit through a camera, she would.
The nice thing about micro expressions is that people pick up on it. Not always consciously, but the sub-conscious mind is designed to do this. People are walking around, democrats included, and they can’t figure out why they don’t like Clinton. They are baffled. They can’t figure out why people like Trump. They are baffled.
Watch her. Try to find something of hers in 60FPS. The look on her face is pure disgust, disdain and hatred of anyone and everyone around her.
At a senior retirement community, we watched two episodes of Lie to Me before the debate... Everyone is clamoring to watch more...
Mrs. Clinton’s range of emotion is limited because she’s a malignant narcissistic sociopath. She’s incapable of empathy and can only feel rage. She only feels happiness when she’s getting her way or when she’s duping or hurting people. She’s not a whole person.
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.