Posted on 10/19/2016 8:21:06 PM PDT by Kaslin
The final presidential debate of the 2016 presidential election is over and according to pollster Frank Luntz and his focus group, Trump was the winner of tonight's debate. That being said, it was close.
href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/DebateNight?src=hash">#DebateNight pic.twitter.com/jDV5RP9eno— Frank Luntz (@FrankLuntz) October 20, 2016
The other winner of the night is moderator Chris Wallace, who did an excellent job managing the candidates, asking questions and staying out of the debate as a contestant.
Chris Wallace is hands down the best moderator of the cycle, bravo #debates— Katie Pavlich (@KatiePavlich) October 20, 2016
We won’t have to. The actual polling data is showing the beginnings of a Trump preference cascade.
Lets get Bezos to drone him over some Tums STAT!
Cruz lost, get over it.
If the question is, did he rally the base? Yes, he won.
If the question is, did he do better than the first debate? Yes, he won.
If the question is, did he modeled himself after Gov. Pence debating technique, yes and no. I agree, in the first half hour of the debate he moderated his voice and refrained from interrupting at his usual pace. But he abandoned the Mike Pence Technique and reverted to the interruptions (which seem to be the most offputting debate losing gaffe of all to the public) and personal attacks which, as I said, appealed to the base but not to the women in the audience.
If the question is, did he to overcome his deficit in the polls, did he do enough to run the table of battleground states which he simply must do to get to 270? No, he did not win.
The whole question for Donald Trump has been whether he is temperamentally fit for office. The bulk of the public had been ready to fire Hillary Clinton because they know what she is but they did not know what Donald Trump was. All he had to do in these debates was appear presidential, to exhibit the kind of gravitas that we expect in the leader of the free world, to reassure women that he is a responsible adult. If he had done this, he would easily beat Hillary Clinton.
In the debates then, Trump did not need to win all the points, he needed only make reasonable arguments in a modulated tone and appear presidential to become the next president.
I ask for your verdict on that issue, we know what the polls tell us the public's verdict is as shaped by the first two debates and by the campaign as well as Hillary's air blitz of negative campaign ads.
I pledged my support to Trump as the winner of the nomination long before he won the nomination and I intend to continue to support Trump.
We don’t have to bring up Cruz to see his supporters still clinging to their lost dream of Cruz in the WH, while attacking Trump every chance they get.
Myself, I'm not one to trust the polls one way or the other.
But since you seem to believe the polls, why are you ignoring the latest IBD and Rasmussen polls (and a couple others) that have Trump tied or ahead?
I have heard of situational ethics but this appears to be situational morality.
Yes, Megan is situational.
More to the point, Hillary did NOT win. At all.
Which, in this current political environment makes Trump a huge winner.
Trust me ... everyone knows it. :)
But let us assume that I am wrong, that the polls you cite which show a virtual tie or Trump slightly behind are accurate, the situation even so it is not much improved for Trump because of his daunting task of overcoming the Democrat advantage in the electoral college. Trump must virtually run the table of the battleground states, if he stumbles in the wrong place, or stumbles twice virtually anywhere, he loses. With the polls you cite, Trump runs a very high risk of failing to put together 270.
A loss in Florida would be fatal, a loss in North Carolina nearly fatal. Do you like his numbers in those states? Do you like his numbers in the other battleground states? Are you sure he will stumble or do you believe the odds are that he will somewhere?
>> Lots of self-delusion going on here,
Battles aren’t won by way of strident sobriety.
I hate focus groups. Worst kind of research available.
Second that.
I dare say "support" is a bit of a stretch unless the act of voting fulfills your definition of support.
You have been consistently passive-aggressive since Trump locked up the nomination.
I think the theory that voters know Hillary is a scoundrel, but don't trust Trump to be "Presidential" enough (as opposed to Hillary herself) is brittle and pale.
At this point, I am far more concerned with the integrity of the process than I am about who enjoys more credibility.
Good to hear...same here.
This effect is getting more severe. Crowder had a good explanation on it based on social media. When you “like” something, all of the ad trackers log that and all of the search engines and portals begin to show only those things that you “like”. Eventually we get to a point where almost all politically active Americans are only seeing what they want to see and reinforcing their beliefs. It’s become highly noticeable on this site.
Sobriety without the stridency can win battles but self-delusion is the sure and certain path to defeat.
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.