Posted on 09/27/2016 6:36:51 AM PDT by Lakeshark
There is something close to a consensus view among pundits that Hillary Clinton “won” the first presidential debate. As has been true throughout the campaign, the pundits are wrong about Trump.
The kind of people who watch a presidential debate with a notepad found Hillary to be well organized, articulate, knowledgeable, and fully presidential. By the conventional rules of the cognitive elite, Trump lost. He was spontaneous, not memorized, emotional, not controlled, and downright angry at times as he reviewed what’s happened to our country over the last decades – the “30 years” Hillary Clinton has been in politics. In a graduate seminar on the economy, he would be flunked for having few facts, a disorganized (spontaneous and emotional) presentation, and for violating the rules of etiquette repeatedly and with gusto.
But for people who have never read a 10- or 12-point economic plan, Trump came across as the guy who is upset over what a raw deal America, and especially blue collar and middle America, has gotten. For people who remember emotional points of conflict more vividly than the play of ideas, I think Trump planted himself firmly on the side of the 90% of Americans whose incomes have stagnated or declined. His interruptions, anger, and spontaneity, combined with his repeated emphasis on action, not mere words, positioned him as a non-politician, while Hillary came across as a smooth politician, her memorized, focus-group-tested points actually working against her in the eyes of the angry and frustrated viewers.
Keep in mind that last night was Act One of a three-act play. Many conservatives are bemoaning Trump’s failure to bring up various vulnerabilities (the email scandal, for instance) of Hillary. But one thing I have learned by watching Trump is that he learns and he adapts his behavior.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
But one thing I have learned by watching Trump is that he learns and he adapts his behavior. This was his first-ever one-on-one debate, a very different animal than the nominating contest. I think he tended to revert to form last night. But he and his brilliant staff will analyze the performance, and I expect he will learn.
Get rid of moderators altogether and replace them with a modified chess clock timer.
Not only do liberal moderators jump in to act as a second debater against the conservative, but it’s inherently biased to let a liberal supposed “journalist” pose the questions in the first place. Not a single question was posed on Hilllary’s illegal email server, or immigration, or the billions unaccounted for at the Clinton Foundation.
Let the debaters bring their own questions for the other. Begin with a coin toss. 1 minute question, then 3 minute answer, then 2 minute rebuttal, 1 minute counter-rebuttal, 30 second summery/final rebuttal. (These times are merely suggestions, but you get the idea. The mic will switch on and off on a set schedule, known and agreed upon by both debaters.)
The microphone goes hot and cold on this schedule. A soft chime alerts the speaker with the hot mic when they have 10 seconds left in any stage segment, and large countdown clocks will be visible to both sides showing who has the hot mic and their time remaining.
At the end of each 7 or 8 minute stage, provide a minute for a water break or note jotting while the clock resets. The next debater can then use his or her new 1 minute question period to revisit the previous topic, and run the stage again on that topic, or, they can switch to an entirely new topic with a fresh question.
Repeat the process, alternating sides, until both are exhausted and agree to quit, or until an agreed-upon time limit is reached.
Just get rid of 3rd wheel moderators, their interference, and their built-in bias.
Sort of what you were saying last night ping.
What debate?
I agree. Either Sean Hannity moderates or there should be no moderator.
That would be far better. Last night’s guy definitely did a bang up job for Hillary. They should have a debate where the moderators are you, Marcus Luttrell, and Alan West......
The debate was a pathetic joke that enrages me the more I think about it. Trumps taxes are pounced upon but the Clinton money laundering foundation is off limits. This woman is a CRIMINAL, what the hell was Trump thinking? Hesort got UNLIMITED ammunition against her!!!
Excellent and fair.
What we have now is an unfair, biased circus in favor of the dems. And they love it.
Republicans will never learn.
The big mistake Trump made last night was accepting the premise of the questions from Holt and Hillary’s statements about him. It put him on the defensive. Every single one of those could have been blocked and then turned right around on Clinton. If he learns to do that the next debate is his.
Who needs a moderator at all? Are the candidates and their advisors too stupid to think up their own questions?
Replacing a biased moderator with a clock timer would let us compare candidate to candidate, without a biased moderator jumping in on one side.
The Stupid Party vs the Evil Party.
When does it end?
Romney cleaned the bamsters clock during the first one in 2012.
It ain't over, and like the author says, Trump not only was standing at the end, a lot of people saw him at his best last night as the outsider fighting the incompetent political elite.
Trump's results aren't the wishes of the political prognosticators who are mostly libs, his results are that a lot of new people saw someone who will fight for them.
No moderator at all. Why? Let the candidates pose their own questions.
The whining would be epic.
I've been proposing a similar version of your proposal for the last 3 Presidential elections.
The "debates" are nothing but a series of position statements. A moderator has no place except to enforce the rules of the debate, but the debate commission insists on appointing moderators that run interference for the Democrat.
Going with “the commission” is just another example of The Stupid Party getting rolled.
I’d insist on moderator-free debates, and tell the “nonpartisan” (sic-LOL) commission to go to hell.
Just bring up Candy Crowley and Holt as the reasons why.
Are the candidates (and their advisors) too stupid to think of their own questions in advance?
Why do we need an official MSM talking head to do it for them?
SOMEone has to have control because left to ourselves, it is human to be selfish and demanding and we don't naturally give way if we think we're not done.
We here in FR are chock FULL of debate questions that we have formulated over (at least) a years' worth of conservative reading and debate amongst ourselves and WE have the natural tendency to decry anyone that doesn't think like us.
It just is what it is.
Perhaps debate questions should be submitted by the debaters ... they both look over the lists and argue between themselves which they will respond to and if they can agree, the moderator merely watches the clock
If debates ever mattered, they matter far less now. The perception that she won doesn’t alter the landscape. The lack of a gaffe or outrageous statement from Trump didn’t give the media anything to pound on for a week. The reaction from the leftist media (Chris Matthews aside) doesn’t seem all that jubilant because she didn’t much more than they expected. She recited her talking points. She was the politician on the stage, and that hurts as much as it helps.
I have no doubt Mrs. Clinton was provided the questions beforehand and was reading answers from note cards. It is a complete sh!t show put on by the media and the globalists.
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.