What you saw at the debate last night depends on who you are

The American Thinker ^ | 9/27/16 | Thomas Lifson

[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.

[NorthMountain]

What you saw at the debate last night depends on who you are

I saw a titanium carbonitride coated endmill cutting through a piece of aluminum.

Literally.

[NorthMountain]

Lincoln and Douglas didn’t need a bloody ‘moderator’. They just went at each other hammer and tongs.

Perhaps today’s politicians aren’t man enough to do that ...

[tomkat]

1) All questions, agreed to in advance by both candidates, are shown on screens for all to see;

2) Coin toss winner at the beginning gets choice of going first or second, thereby setting up the coin toss loser to have the final (second) summation;

3) Red/Yellow/Green lights on each podium, wired to a timer that automatically shuts off the respective mic when time expires;

4) Any audience present is in a separate room/facility to eliminate both cheering (etc) and anything either candidate attempts to add after mic has been shut off.

5) Optionally, candidates may jointly agree to choose dueling pistols and/or swords at anytime during the debate.

[Leep]

I think we are seeing firsthand the unraveling of the facade.
The corrupt, the sell outs, the petty, the cowards, the self serving. Many of the PLAYAHS have been exposed for what they really are. Some we already suspected like the Bushes, Beck and some that were surprising like Mark Stein who went limp on us.
Anyhow, hillary doesn’t know it yet but she is obsolete.
The MSM is essentially obsolete.

[generally]

I tend to agree. I thought Trump could have done a lot better and was surprised Hitlery did as well as she did.

>>But one thing I have learned by watching Trump is that he learns and he adapts his behavior.

I hope this is true. Maybe this will give her the false impression that she “got away with it” last night. I’d like to see her crumble in the next two debates, either under her own power or with Trump’s nudge. Or maybe he will just crush her. The latter would be fun to watch, but probably not the best tactic to win voters to his side.

[Darnright]

>Get rid of moderators altogether and replace them with a modified chess clock timer.<

That is an incredible idea. And, you know the dems will never, ever agree. They only win by stacking the deck. We all know this.

[GrandJediMasterYoda]

It was wrong of me to blame Trump entirely, I watched re-runs of it and this Lester Holt was completely bias against Trump. Like Ann Coulter says, the whole debate focused on:

“Trump’s taxes, income, father, ‘72 lawsuit, remarks as a reality tv star...& didn’t waste any time on immigration.”

Absolutely right. NOTHING about illegals, NOTHING about the Clinton money laundering foundation, Benghazi, it was outrageous. It was Trump vs Hillary and Lester Holt.

This is a great article on this.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/09/26/lester-holt-candy-crowley-moment-first-debate/

Rudy Guiliani is right, Trump should refuse to do another debate until non-partisan people are moderating.

[hinckley buzzard]

I expect Clinton will appear at the next debate to be cocky and condescending, feign a lighthearted demeanor, including the sh*t-eating grin plastered on her puttied up face. She will underestimate Trump based on her own side's press releases. She will be in for a surprise, and by the end she will not be grinning.