ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [409] -- The Debate Wait

[ Posted Friday, September 23rd, 2016 – 15:04 PDT ]

This past week, normal Americans went about their daily lives. Children endured school once again, the birds twittered merrily, and lovers everywhere fell in love. Life went on for hundreds of millions. Lucky them.

In the world of wonkcraft, though, political observers everywhere are caught in a waiting game, ticking off the moments until the first presidential debate (which happens this Monday night -- which you probably already knew, if you're reading this sort of article). What will happen? Will Donald Trump melt down? Will he strain his "presidential" muscle? Will he storm off the stage in a tantrum, halfway through? Will Hillary Clinton make it through the evening without stumbling (either metaphorically or physically, one might add)? Will Lester Holt redeem NBC News after the fiasco named Matt Lauer? Will Trump reference body parts (his own, his opponent's, or perhaps even the moderator's)? It's certainly happened before.

The audience, when the debate actually happens, will be huge. Tremendous, in fact. Some (we won't say who) are even predicting it could be a bigger television event worldwide than the 1969 moon landing. We aren't sure we'd go that far, but it certainly will be popular television, that's for sure. But while the vast majority of Americans won't be thinking about the debate until it actually happens, the rest of us in the world of political obsession have been thinking about little else all week long.

Hillary Clinton is spending a lot of time on debate preparation, but Team Hillary has managed to keep quiet who is "playing Trump" in her practice debate sessions. Donald Trump, on the other hand, appears to be comfortable just winging it -- which, it must be admitted, worked pretty well for him in the primaries.

Both candidates are being given conflicting advice on how tough to be. Clinton is being told to essentially ignore Trump and just "be presidential" the whole time, but another faction is urging her to whip out a verbal switchblade and plunge it into her opponent. Hey, why not? Even the Dalai Lama's now mocking Trump! Trump's natural inclination, of course, is to toss verbal hand grenades willy-nilly, but he is being urged by many Republicans to forgo the pleasure of doing so and (again) just to "look presidential" the whole time. Both sides are working the media refs, and will continue to do so right up to Monday night. Trump's team insists that if Trump just refrains from cursing (and/or being vicious), then he'll have "won" the night. Clinton's team has already worked the refs to its advantage, because the spectre of Matt Lauer's fiasco will be hanging over Lester Holt in a big way.

But no matter what happens, and no matter what is said about it afterwards, we've all still got a few days left to wait. To fill the time, let's take a look back at the past week.

One thing we do know for certain about Monday's debate -- there will only be two candidates on stage. Gary Johnson and Jill Stein didn't make the official cut (of polling 15 percent or better nationally), even though this race could indeed be affected by third-party voting in a big way.

A fun fact that few have noticed: Donald Trump hasn't given a press conference in almost two months. What's up with that? Trump used to love sparring with (and taunting) the press, so the absence is notable.

Perhaps there's a reason for this, since yet another conservative newspaper broke a century-old tradition by endorsing Hillary Clinton rather than the Republican candidate (as they usually do). It's getting so this barely even qualifies as news anymore. Trump may go down in history with the fewest newspaper endorsements ever, but (to be fair) that might not matter too much at all.

As we were writing this, there was some breaking news on the Trump endorsement front, as Senator Ted Cruz swallowed the remaining shreds of whatever dignity he possessed, and went ahead and endorsed Donald Trump. For handy reference, the Washington Post put together a list of just some of the nasty things Cruz and Trump have said about each other. Cruz has called Trump: "a narcissist at a level I don't think this country's ever seen," "a serial philanderer," "utterly amoral," "a bully", and "a sniveling coward." That last one was right before he defended his wife by saying: "Leave Heidi the hell alone."

Cruz was booed at the Republican National Convention for not openly supporting Trump during his speech, after which he explained why he couldn't honor the pledge all the GOP candidates made to support the eventual nominee: "I am not in the habit of supporting people who attack my wife and attack my father. That pledge was not a blanket commitment that if you go and slander my wife that I am going to come like a servile puppy dog for maligning my wife and maligning my father." Today, servile puppy dog Ted Cruz came crawling to Trump. It'll be interesting to see what Trump has to say about it, because back during the convention Trump had pledged, about a Cruz endorsement: "If he gives it, I will not accept it. I don't want his endorsement. Just, Ted, stay home, relax, enjoy yourself."

Speaking of spineless Republicans who have endorsed Trump, Chris Christie had a pretty bad week, because it came out in court that he probably did know all about the bridge closure while it was happening. Whoops! The New Jersey state congress is now reportedly considering impeaching him, which might guarantee that he'd never get to be Trump's attorney general. To convict Christie, Democrats would need to convince three state GOP senators to vote to convict, though, so it's not a sure thing.

One quick note from the other side of the campaign aisle (if that metaphor isn't too mixed) that few have yet noticed: Hillary Clinton seems to be recovering somewhat in the polls. Now, this trend is recent and could just be statistical noise, and no matter what happens the credit or blame will likely go to her debate performance, but while most pundits are still going with "Clinton down in the polls!" the reality is that she's been doing better for at least a week -- while Trump's numbers have topped out and started to slide backwards. If she does well in the debate, she'll already have a tailwind at her back, to put this another way.

And finally, a last item unrelated to the campaign. Not to be outdone by hating on Obamacare, a whole bunch of mostly-Republican states have now sued the Obama administration to try to stop the new overtime rule from going into effect this December. Obama announced the new rule a while back, which will double the threshold where employees can be called "salaried" -- thereby avoiding pesky overtime payments for their employers. The old limit was decades old, whereas the new limit of $47,500 is much more in line with today's working reality. As it turns out, greedy corporations aren't the only ones abusing low-paid workers by working them 50 or 60 hours a week with no extra pay -- state governments have been exploiting the same loophole! And now they're sad, because they are going to have to stop the practice. What was interesting was what one of the attorneys general suing predicted, should the new rule take effect: "it may lead to disastrous consequences for our economy." Um, yeah, because giving workers more money or more time to enjoy it would certainly be a disaster, right? Yet another difference between the two parties that Democrats out on the campaign trail really should be exploiting.

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

This week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award was pretty easy to pick, as Senator Elizabeth Warren proved once again what a bang-up choice she would have been for Hillary Clinton's veep.

Warren excels at raking Wall Street executives over the coals in Senate hearings, of course, and this week was no different. Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf was on the hot seat this time around, for running a scam for five years and then "cleaning it up" by firing a bunch of low-level employees and giving all the executives (himself included) fat multi-million-dollar bonuses.

Warren was scathing in her indictment not only of Stumpf, but of the culture that allows such things to happen. She lit into him with barely-concealed disgust, saying to his face: "You should resign. You should give back the money you took while this scam was going on and you should be criminally investigated." She had plenty of other things to say, as well:

"This just isn't right," Warren said. "You squeezed employees to the breaking point" to drive up the stock price and your compensation, she said, referencing the bank's fierce drive to "cross-sell" or make customers open up multiple accounts. "You went on television to blame thousands of $12-an-hour" workers.

"It's gutless leadership," Warren said.

Last week Stumpf in a televised interview appeared to blame low-level workers for this behavior, which was widespread throughout the bank -- 5,300 employees were fired for their involvement.

A cashier who "steals a handful of $20s" is held accountable, Warren said. Bank executives aren't.

"The only way Wall Street will change will be if executives face jail time" for criminal behavior, she said.

Amen to that, sister. Elizabeth Warren continues to be the worst scourge Wall Street has seen since Teddy Roosevelt, and she more than earned her eleventh MIDOTW award this week. Since the veep slot is already taken, might we suggest Secretary of the Treasury Elizabeth Warren?

[Congratulate Senator Elizabeth Warren on her Senate contact page, to let her know you appreciate her efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

For the second time inside the same month, our obvious winner of the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award is none other than serial peter-tweeter Anthony "Most Appropriate Last Name Ever" Weiner.

This one may be a whole lot more serious than all the other times he got caught "sexting" with women who were not currently married to him. Because this time, Weiner was reportedly committing digital hanky-panky with a 15-year-old girl. Wow. We really thought he had already hit the lowest part of the gutter, but it turns out he has sunk even further into the slime down there. So far into the slime that he is now facing a criminal investigation, because getting raunchy with underage high school students online is actually against the law (which wasn't true for all his other exploits with adult women).

In fact, we can't even bring ourselves to rake through the sordid details, so we'll just provide one link to an overview story with nothing but the broad details, as well as a link to the original story, which comes complete with all the naughty texts and the eyebrow-raising details (which include rape fantasies and an actual schoolgirl dressing up like a schoolgirl). Choose which link to read, based on the strength of your intestinal fortitude, we suppose.

One thing that didn't give us a moment's pause, however, was to hand Anthony Weiner his sixth Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week -- all given out for his amorous online behavior. Four weeks ago, when we gave him his fifth award, we wrote: "Hopefully, three strikes means he will forever be out of the public eye, and we'll never have to give him another MDDOTW award ever again. Hopefully, at any rate."

Our hopes, as it turned out, were dashed -- within a single month's time.

[We do not provide people's contact info who are not currently in public office as a rule, but as it turns out it appears you can send Anthony Weiner a text message quite easily. I mean, it must be pretty easy because it has happened so often, right?]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 409 (9/23/16)

After typing in this week's volume number, we were reminded of a time when music and automotive enthusiasm were one and the same. Yes, we speak of the Beach Boys, and the immortal lines:

She's real fine, my 409
She's real fine, my 409
My 4... 0... 9

These were simpler times, back when a band could include a line like: "My four-speed dual-quad Posi-Traction 409" and everyone knew what they were talking about (without having to have Marisa Tomei explain it in My Cousin Vinny, either). Good times, indeed. Seriously, given the choice between that and the brand name of a household cleaner, we'll choose the Beach Boys every time. Truer words were never spoken: "Giddy up, giddy up, 409."

Ahem. Where were we? Oh, right, politics. Somehow we got distracted there for a moment. We do apologize, it won't happen again.

The business at hand is, of course, attempting to create some zingers for Hillary Clinton to use in Monday's debate. We tried to pick just the things that will really get under Trump's orange skin. He's awfully touchy about certain subjects, so if the moderator isn't hitting them hard enough, Clinton should step in and do so herself. Given the fact that she'll have a couple of minutes for each response, the talking points came out longer than normal this week. But if Clinton even says anything close to any of them, we'll be happy enough.

Trump is pretty easy to bait, and if he hasn't melted down by (say) halfway through, then Clinton should start needling him to provoke the "Mr. Hyde" version of Trump millions of people will be tuning in to see. So here are our seven suggestions to be included in Hillary's debate prep sessions.

 

1
   Whose hands?

No, that's not a lead-in to a "tiny hands" joke. Sure, it'd be amusing if Hillary went there, but we seriously doubt she will. Instead, it's an answer to a riff Trump let loose earlier this week.

"Donald, you said earlier this week, and I quote: American hands will rebuild our nation, not the hands of people from other nations. Unquote. I find this a little laughable, because it's a well-known fact that Trump Tower was built using Polish laborers, some of whom were illegal immigrants at the time. Your new D.C. hotel was built with lots of Central American construction workers, also including some undocumented immigrants. Down in Mar-a-Lago, you import foreign workers every summer rather than hire American workers who according to you should have jobs made available to them before any foreigners are even considered. And don't even get me started on all the products -- your signature ties, your suits -- which are made in China and elsewhere overseas. So why should anyone believe you when you say you'll make sure 'American hands' are put to work? After all, you certainly have never operated any of your own business that way."

 

2
   Ever? Really?

This one is such an easy shot, we'd be downright surprised if Clinton doesn't take it.

"Last week, you said the following: 'our African-American communities are absolutely in the worst shape they've ever been in before. Ever, ever, ever.' Wow -- that's pretty definite, isn't it? 'Ever, ever, ever.' Really? Can you not even think of one single period of American history where African-American communities were in worse shape? Not even one? Do any of these words mean anything to you at all? Jim Crow. Segregation. Slavery. Lynchings. Race riots. Dred Scott. Separate but equal. Any of these ringing a bell? But according to you, the current situation is worse than all of those bygone eras. I mean, have you ever taken an American history class? Ever? Ever? Ever?"

 

3
   Why should anyone believe you?

This subject is going to come up, obviously.

"You know, Donald, you are asking American voters to take a whole lot on nothing but your word. You say you're worth billions -- but you won't let anyone look at your taxes. You say you give millions to charity, but won't prove it in any way. You say you hate all the influence-buying in politics, but it turns out your campaign is handing millions of dollars that other people have donated to you over to your own businesses -- seven percent of all the money you've recently spent went to your own businesses. Now, I've released decades of my tax returns so the public can see how much I give to charity, how much money I make, and where it comes from. You refuse to do the same. You say you're under audit, but you won't even release older tax returns which are not covered by the audit. Why won't you show the public your tax returns for 2006? Or 2005? Or 2001? Or any year before that? What do you have to hide? What are you scared the public will figure out? That you're nowhere near as wealthy as you pretend to be? That you don't pay any taxes at all? I'll even make it easy for you, so you can keep your big secret hidden in every tax return you've ever filed -- just answer me one simple question: how much money did you personally donate to charity last year? How much? Just a ballpark figure -- that won't affect your audit in any way, shape, or form. So how much did you give last year, Donald -- out of your own pocket? It's a pretty easy question, after all."

 

4
   Cracks in the foundation

Clinton, of course, will be asked about her family foundation. After answering the question, she should demand equal time from Trump.

"The Clinton Foundation has consistently earned the highest ratings from independent organizations who carefully examine non-profit records. We just earned four stars out of four, as a matter of fact. Meanwhile, the Donald J. Trump foundation has been operated like a personal slush fund by Mr. Trump. He hasn't donated one thin dime to his namesake foundation in over six years, which is rather astonishing. The Trump Foundation just got caught giving a political donation to an attorney general who was thinking about filing charges against the Trump University scam. That's illegal, and led to a fine from the I.R.S. But there's plenty of other questionable activities the Trump Foundation has been caught doing -- like spending tens of thousands of dollars on paintings of Donald Trump that were then hung in his for-profit businesses. That's illegal, too. The Trump Foundation has even been exposed for paying off Donald Trump's personal legal obligations, in court, to the tune of over a quarter-million dollars. Donald, you stiffed a guy who thought he had won a million bucks by hitting a hole-in-one -- since you promised this amount during the tournament -- and then after he had to sue you, you paid the man off by donating to his charity from your own charity, instead of out of your own pocket like you should have. Which is, once again, illegal. My charity does good work all over the globe. Yours seems to be nothing more than a cookie jar for you to dip into whenever you feel like."

 

5
   Show me the money!

I considering going with "Where's the beef?" but that's even staler than Jerry Maguire.

"You know, Donald, I hear a whole lot of ideas from you about what you're going to do as president. You make all kinds of promises, but the one thing that you won't admit is that all the things you say you're going to do -- walls, deportations, stuff like that -- cost money. And you never seem to get around to saying how you're going to pay for any of it. Your plans would add trillions of dollars to the national debt, something you say you disapprove of. When I propose a plan, I say how I'm going to pay for it. You don't. Plain and simple. What are you going to do if you actually do pass some of these things into law, and it blows a trillion-dollar hole in the budget? In the real world, things have to be paid for. I know this might be a foreign concept to you, since you're used to stiffing people who work for you and daring them to sue you if they want more than pennies on the dollar of what you promised you'd pay them, and you're also used to just declaring one of your companies bankrupt and walking away from all your debt, but the government doesn't work that way. So I ask you, Donald, for all of these supposedly-wonderful things you're promising you'll do: Where's the money going to come from? Show me the money!"

 

6
   Hundreds of millions?

Getting back to those tax returns....

"Why should America trust Donald Trump to set our foreign policy when he won't even tell us how much he owes foreign banks? Rumor has it that Trump has a tough time getting American banks to lend him any money anymore, because he's stiffed them so many times in his convenient bankruptcies. They've learned their lesson -- lending money to Trump is a bad bet. So he had to go overseas to get funding. He finally found some banks in China and Russia that would lend him money, and now I've seen estimates that he owes hundreds of millions of dollars to banks in both countries. So again, because you have such a big secret in your tax returns that we aren't even going to get a chance to see them, let me ask you point-blank: How much money do you owe Chinese and Russian bankers, Donald? It's an easy question, and one that anyone auditioning for commander-in-chief needs to clearly answer. Because you'd better believe that's going to influence our entire country's foreign policy if Donald Trump is elected."

 

7
   C'mon, you can say it!

Perhaps it's all the talk of "Where's the beef?" and Beach Boys songs, but I couldn't resist the urge to reach way back for this one. Those who recognize it will immediately get the joke. Those who don't, ask someone over the age of 45 to explain it to you.

"Can you even say the words 'I was wrong,' Donald? Is it even physically possible for you to utter that phrase? So far, there's been no evidence of it. You spent how many years stating Barack Obama was hiding something in his birth certificate, or was perhaps born elsewhere. Then, last week, I guess your political handlers and donors made you dance like a puppet on a string and admit that Barack Obama was indeed born in Hawai'i, just like he had been saying all along. So, he was right. You were wrong. Man up, Donald. Admit it. Just say the words 'I was wrong' once, to prove you can. Otherwise, we'll all just have to believe you've got the same speech impediment that so famously afflicted the Fonz."

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

184 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [409] -- The Debate Wait”

  1. [1] 
    Paula wrote:

    Anyything that touches on his money -- the fortune he claims to have, and the money he claims to have spent on charity -- I think those are the topics about which Trump will be most sensitive. So #3, 4 & 6 are especially strong and I hope Hillary will find the openings to needle him on those. Of course Lester Holt could also ask about these things but he probably won't.

    Meanwhile, there's this: http://www.politicususa.com/2016/09/23/hillary-clinton-drops-debate-bomb-trump-releasing-19-pages-fact-checked-lies.html in which the HRC campaign has helpfully provided media figures (and the public) with this handy list of Trump lies so that if he utters any of them it can be quickly pointed out. I love them taking the initiative on this and basically daring the media to give him a pass on dishonesty during the debate.

  2. [2] 
    Paula wrote:

    Also of interest, per http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/national-politics/article103627652.html

    Sixty percent of registered voters say he does not respect "ordinary Americans," according to the poll. That's far more than the 48 percent who say the same about Clinton.

    And:

    Nearly three in four do not view him as even somewhat civil or compassionate. Half say he's at least somewhat racist. Those numbers are largely unchanged from the last time the AP-GfK survey was conducted in July.

    Many people are concerned a Clinton/Trump match could go down like Gore/Bush, where Gore was seen as stuffy or elitist while Bush was seen as the nice guy -- I don't think that will happen here. Trump is not seen as a nice guy anymore. If anything I could see the match-up being "the librarian versus the loud-mouth-braggart-you-try-to-escape-in-a-bar".

    Whatever happens, it is a very different dynamic.

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I don't think that will happen here. Trump is not seen as a nice guy anymore.

    Anymore?

    Trump isn't tied with Clinton because he was ever a nice guy!

    I think you may be missing the big picture, here ...

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'd like to see how he handles a question on nuclear policy.

    I think it would be fun to watch.

  5. [5] 
    neilm wrote:

    I think she should ask about his pre-audit tax returns several times so it comes up in the post game show.

    "What do you have to hide Donald, what do you have to hide?"

  6. [6] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    Hey CW:

    Since your brought up the vol #, might as well snark a tad.

    We know you do awards at the end of the year, but do you take another day off (T-Day weekend?) or is 12/9 the big day for our "volume number"? Any big plans (if not, start thinking now)? Heh.

  7. [7] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Around here, the presidential election is apparently pretty red, so we mostly see senate ads on the TV. Jim Gray and Evan Bayh a lot. Weirdly, Rant Paul only has one ad that I've seen. He apparently thinks we should vote for him because he did free eye surgery for some poor woman who couldn't afford his sight-saving miracle. I can only assume that this is a dog whistle to the ACA haters. Who needs the socialism when we have self-credentialed doctors giving free stuff away?

  8. [8] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    Given the scant attention to actual policy questions in this presidential campaign, the fact that only two of your seven suggestions slightly allude to policy questions isn't very wonky of you, or welcome news to me.

    Then again, since both candidates favor cutting corporate tax rates, expanded fossil fuel extraction, military interventionism, blind support for Israel, the continuation of massive "defense" spending, continuing the war on drugs, the ongoing constitutional and privacy violations by the NSA and FBI, massive corporate subsidies and undue corporate and Big Money influence on our politics through legalized bribery and lobbyists, massive spending on nuclear weapons and subsidies for nuclear energy, rule of law exemptions for the 1%, the continuing expansion of our militarized police state, the anti-union corporate privatization attack on public education, offshoring and outsourcing, prosecuting whistleblowers, economy threatening under-regulation...

    ... an incomplete list of what both agree on I'm sure...

    ... there aren't too many policy questions left to debate...

    ... so we are stuck with sniping about whose foundation funded by seedy interests is worse, whose fortune was amassed through worse shady dealings, who is more dishonest, who is less corrupt, etc.

    Anyway, I just hope that if Trump wins, Democrats suddenly remember that they oppose all those things, and that if Hillary wins they remember they should STILL oppose all those things.

    Neither of these candidates deserves to lead our country, so I am hoping whoever eeks out the win is hobbled by a weak mandate and strong opposition from good people and thus can't cause too much harm. Our two party, one establishment nightmare of a system needs to be strongly opposed.

    A

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump threatens to bring Gennifer Flowers to debate
    http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/donald-trump-bill-clinton-gennifer-flowers-presidential-debate

    Now THAT's what I am talking about!!!! :D

    Has as much relevance to the debate as Trump's tax returns.

    Although I am certain ya'all will disagree..

    Michale

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Anyway, I just hope that if Trump wins, Democrats suddenly remember that they oppose all those things, and that if Hillary wins they remember they should STILL oppose all those things.

    "Of course" to the first..

    "Of course not" to the second...

    Michale

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/09/dr_lisa_bardacks_faustian_bargain.html

    And ya'all REALLY believe that Hillary is going to be able to stand for 90 minutes under hot stage lights???

    MOOSE POOP!!!! MOOSE POOP I tell ya....

    Michale

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obama used a pseudonym in emails with Clinton, FBI documents reveal
    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/hillary-clinton-emails-fbi-228607#ixzz4LD17o7yB

    Looks like Obama got caught in another lie.... :D

    Michale

  13. [13] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    Yes, I can feel the GOP excitement at how Trump bringing Flowers to the debate will help him with women voters. Not!

  14. [14] 
    neilm wrote:

    My wife's reaction to the Flower's invite

    Wife: "What an asshole!"
    Me: "Which?"
    Wife: "Both of them."

    Why didn't Trump just pick Geraldo as VP?

  15. [15] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I REALLY like "Show me the Money". So useful. If she wants to stroke the press and work the refs a bit, she could use the old Watergate line, "follow the money" as a rhetorical device.

  16. [16] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Neilm [14]: big :)

  17. [17] 
    TheStig wrote:

    "The business at hand is, of course, attempting to create some zingers for Hillary Clinton to use in Monday's debate."

    Mission accomplished!

  18. [18] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Does Anthony "Whip It" Weiner really qualify for a Most Disappointing Democrat? I don't think so.

    The preferred definition of disappointed is typically something like:

    ?unhappy or discouraged because your hopes or expectations about something or someone were not satisfied.

    After five sordid episodes, no person can have any reasonable hope that Weiner won't strike again. In fact, a reasonable person should fully expect repeat performances, so long as he has access to a Smartphone and his zipper. Ladies and gentleman, we have a Weiner! This is simply what he does in his spare time. He doesn't even deserve a joke "award."

  19. [19] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Hey Stig,

    Remember the 2016 Presidential Election Simulator that you posted a link to a few threads back, and how you & I discussed the fact that most simulations show Trump leading for most of the night only to be overtaken by Hillary only in the final hours as the Democratic west coast comes in? Well, I was trying to sort out today what that could mean for voting patterns, that is, how could that help/hurt Hillary?

    Some research gives me the historic effect of poll closing times on voting: , and

    If we're right, all three of these could be in play on election eve. In order:

    (1) Some citizens do not vote when they hear that an election has been decided.

    So a close election throughout the night would mean that more people might get out and vote in the west.

    (2) Citizens in the West tend to feel their vote counts only when the Presidential election is close.

    The fact that the polls have been close could actually help the GOTV effort in the West.

    (3) Other Federal, state and local races can be affected by voters staying home from the polls.

    Down-ballot races matter.

    If Trump appears to have a lead as late as 8pm EST (and our models suggest he will), it could pull Hillary voters out to the polls in the West.

    On the one hand, almost all of the most important battleground states are east of the Mississippi, and the Pacific coast states are likely to go for Hillary anyway, so large turnouts in those states will only give the Democrats more of what they already have, but could have an effect down-ballot.

    But there are two states where the late-tight-race effect could be huge: Nevada and Arizona. Of these, the big plum would be Arizona, with 11 electoral votes. Right now Trump leads Clinton in Arizona - but by only 3%. If that's a baseline, then a modest bump in turnout could turn that state and deliver enough votes to enable her to lose New Hampshire and Maine. If Nevada gets the same bump and swings democratic then it, along with Arizona could provide enough EV's to make up for her losing North Carolina, Wisconsin or Michigan.

    So if I'm on Hillary's team, I'm sending Tim Kaine to Vegas, then Tuscon.

  20. [20] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    One thing to consider, Balthasar [19], CA has a Dem-only Senate race. I would expect to see reasonably large Dem turnout no matter what. If Clinton is ahead at the right time, then we'll probably see low GOP turnout in CA. The Down Ballot implications of this are huge (can we finally get rid of Issa?).

  21. [21] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    Neilm [14]: Is the second person in your wife's "both" comment Clinton or Flowers? I don't really see any asininity in inviting Cuban, to be honest.

  22. [22] 
    neilm wrote:

    Both = Trump and Flowers

  23. [23] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    Your wife is a wise woman, neilm.

  24. [24] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Balthasar - 19

    I think you make a pretty good case, especially about down ticket voting.

    AZ seems a bit of a stretch to me. The gap favoring Trump is small, but it been consistently widening over the last two months and the forecasters are giving Trump roughly 70-90% odds of taking the state. Still, 10-30% chances happen all the time to each and every one of us, day in day out. Yeah, time zones could play a role in an AZ upset.

    I think people will be talking about the 2016 elections for a long time.

  25. [25] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    The Down Ballot implications of this are huge (can we finally get rid of Issa?)

    Oh, that would be very nice!

    I think people will be talking about the 2016 elections for a long time.

    I think there's also a chance that the Hispanic vote is being heavily discounted in the polls, given the historically low voting rates in that community. If they decide to come out in significant numbers to vote against Trump, the expectations could change in a hurry. That's why I'd send Kaine to AZ, maybe headquarter him in Tuscon for the duration to do as much spanish-speaking TV and radio as he can muster.

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    My wife's reaction to the Flower's invite

    Guess yer filter ain't werkin', eh?? :D

    hehe

    Michale

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hispanic Dems 'disappointed' with party's Latino outreach

    Congressional Hispanic Democrats are questioning the party's approach to campaigning in Latino communities, as Republicans led by Donald Trump exceed expectations with the demographic.

    The poor results reveal a rift between the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) and Democratic Party leadership over how to approach Latino voters.
    http://origin-nyi.thehill.com/latino/297515-hispanic-dems-disappointed-with-partys-latino-outreach

    As with everything else this election, ya'all are over-estimating Clinton's popularity and capability...

    There is also the fear factor...

    It's entirely likely that Trump's win is going to be a blow-out because of both the over-estimation and the fear-factor..

    Michale

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Down Ballot implications of this are huge (can we finally get rid of Issa?)

    Oh, that would be very nice!

    Exactly!!

    Ya'all's ENTIRE premise, ya'all's ENTIRE approach to this election is "Wouldn't it be nice...."

    Ya'all ignore facts and reality in pursuit of maintaining a "wouldn't it be nice" illusion...

    Ya'all did the EXACT same thing during the primaries and ya'all did the EXACT same thing in the run up to the BREXIT vote...

    Ya'all are going to have a MAJOR "wouldn't it be nice" hangover come 9 Nov.....

    Michale

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speak2,

    I don't really see any asininity in inviting Cuban, to be honest.

    Of course you don't.. Clinton has a '-D' after her name so, as far as you are concerned, it's IMPOSSIBLE for her to exhibit ANY ass-ininityity. :D

    Michale

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    Most Americans say they are following the campaign diligently, but a higher percentage of Trump supporters appear to be paying close attention than Clinton backers. Also, more Clinton backers say they are not registered to vote, which adds to pressure on her team to get them registered and to the polls.

    Another potentially worrying sign for Clinton is that she is getting a smaller share of voters who supported Obama in 2012 than Trump is getting among those who backed Romney.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-clinton-trump-in-virtual-dead-heat-on-eve-of-first-debate/2016/09/24/b99c95de-81cb-11e6-8327-f141a7beb626_story.html

    As I have been saying all along..

    Democrats have an "enthusiasm" problem..

    And that is what is going to propel Trump into the Oval Office..

    You heard it here first...

    Michale

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's funny how the Debate bar has been lowered so much for both candidates...

    For Trump if he can avoid saying something REALLY stoopid, in a campaign replete with stoopid, it would be a "win" for him..

    For Hillary, all she has to do is stand for 90 minutes under hot stage lights, remain upright and not cough up a lung and it's a "win" for her...

    :D

    At the rate we're going, the next POTUS election debate in 2020 with be a Left Wingery dream come true..

    You "win" just by showing up.....

    Michale

  32. [32] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The Cuban invite isn't asinine, per se, but the public disclosure of it is.

    It is juvenile, though, any way you slice it and has a certain air of desperation about it.

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    It is juvenile, though, any way you slice it and has a certain air of desperation about it.

    Couldn't have put it better myself.. :D

    Well said, Liz :D

    Michale

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's what I like about you, Liz...

    You may (or may not.. :D) be totally off base about Trump, but at least you are under no illusions about Hillary Clinton and who/what she is....

    That puts you head and shoulders above practically every Weigantian.. :D

    Michale

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Completely unrelated...

    Watched the new GHOSTBUSTERS last night..

    Don't listen to the critics.. It was awesome!!!

    The tribute to EGON was subtle, but REALLY awesome... :D

    A definite RECOMMEND .....

    Michale

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Juanita Broaddrick would confront Hillary if Trump invited her to debate
    http://www.theamericanmirror.com/juanita-broaddrick-confront-hillary-trump-invited-debate/

    Nice.... :D

    Michale

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like Gennifer Flowers *IS* going to front row at the debate...

    Hillary's first major mistake..

    Trying to out-gutter Trump... :D

    Michale

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh Kick....

    Clinton's lead narrows to 3 points in Pennsylvania
    http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/297637-clintons-lead-narrows-to-3-points-in-pennsylvania

    Wake up, Wake up... You little sleepy head...
    Get yer little buns outta bed...

    Wake up, Wake up... It's time to brush yer teeth...
    Make sure all yer kids are fed....

    heh

    Hillary has blown an EIGHT POINT lead in PA....

    Michale

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    "I just love fucking with the clergy.."
    -Loki, DOGMA

    :D

    Michale

  40. [40] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Looks like Gennifer Flowers *IS* going to front row at the debate.

    Perhaps they can seat her next to Melania Trump, and the two can discuss how to form thoughts without assistance.

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Perhaps they can seat her next to Melania Trump, and the two can discuss how to form thoughts without assistance.

    Wow...

    If someone with a '-R' after their name said something like that, ya'all would be screaming MISOGYNIST!!!!! to the high heavens.......

    Without double standards, ya would have no standards at all... :D

    Michale

  42. [42] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    This Kellyanne Conway has got to go for poo-pooing the Orange One's stupid Gennifer Flowers trolling. It's more fun when they let Trump be Trump. Sad!

  43. [43] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey again CW

    With all the "liberal" and "progressive" Democrats seemingly comfortable with the policies both candidates share (see above) as the willingness to give Hillary your votes demonstrates conclusively, yet knowing that you have spoken out against at least some of them, I was curious what approach you think should be taken if Hillary wins to help put an end to them.

    I ask because the efforts by policy wonks, party members and activists to stop Obama from pursuing these disastrous policies were for the most part ineffective (Obama's hands-off approach to state efforts for medical and recreational pot being the only exception... though federal targeting of state legal dispensaries continued despite his supposed authority over them).
    And, on the flipside, Obama actually ramped up some of the worst policies despite the massive efforts by Dems, wonks and activists.

    So, basically, are you resigned to just accept the status quo continuing under Hillary, and pretending that the Democratic party's big tent welcomes the corporatism and militarism, etc. despite the obvious dissent from the Bernie wing of the party?

    Is staying silent until after the election and then returning to the approach that achieved almost nothing the plan?

    Hasn't the injustice (everything from the lack of prosecutions for fraud and torture to environmental destruction to dead women and children from our bombs) been eating at you?

    A

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    This Kellyanne Conway has got to go

    Yea.. She's going to make it so Trump is actually ELECTED!!!

    Sucks to be you, eh?? :D

    Heh

    Michale

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    So far, we have Gennifer Flowers, Juanita Brodderick and Paula Jones sitting front row at the debates, right in Hillary's face....

    Now we just need Kathleen Wiley and Monica Lewinsky wearing a stained blue dress and we'll be in business.. :D heh

    Michale

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hillary wants to play gutter politics, Trump is going to be HAPPY to oblige her... :D

    Michale

  47. [47] 
    apophis wrote:

    Looks like Trump has backed off inviting Gennifer Flowers to the debate. Most likely Conway put the damper on that...

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like Trump has backed off inviting Gennifer Flowers to the debate. Most likely Conway put the damper on that...

    Link??

    Michale

  49. [49] 
    apophis wrote:

    Saw it on ABC's “This Week” talking to Conway..

  50. [50] 
    apophis wrote:
  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    If true, I have to admit that it IS the smarter move.... But I still want to see Hillary squirm.. It's so well-deserved...

    Michale

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here's a link:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-campaign-says-it-did-not-invite-gennifer-flowers-to-mondays-debate/

    Thanx...

    A shame.. It would have made for great theater.....

    Kinda like when Trump pushed a Trump/Bernie debate but then backed out....

    Michale

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump should invite George Zimmerman to the debate!! :D

    Michale

  54. [54] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Looks like Trump has backed off inviting Gennifer Flowers to the debate. Most likely Conway put the damper on that.

    ..and then took his cellphone away, again.

    Trump should invite George Zimmerman to the debate!

    Now that's thinking like Trump!

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now that's thinking like Trump!

    Why, THANK you!!! That's the nicest thing you have EVER said about me!!! :D

    Michale

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/09/25/walmart-workers-refuse-to-make-cops-retirement-cake.html

    Too bad the cop wasn't gay.. It wouldn't have been a problem..

    This is the EXACT kind of stupid, moronic and totally ridiculous Political Correct type bullshit that PROVES beyond any doubt that the Left Wingery is utterly contemptible.....

    Michale

  57. [57] 
    apophis wrote:

    Here's a link for live streaming the debate if you have no other means to watch...

    http://www.democracynow.org/live/democracy_now_2016_expanding_the_debate

  58. [58] 
    Dr.Fish wrote:

    Ending tweets and/or comments with the word "sad" is sooo Trumpesque! Sad!

    :-)

  59. [59] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Too bad the cop wasn't gay.. It wouldn't have been a problem..

    This is the EXACT kind of stupid, moronic and totally ridiculous hate-filled homophobic type bullshit that PROVES beyond any doubt that Michale is utterly contemptible.....

  60. [60] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    altohone,

    So you believe that it is better to throw away your vote/refuse to vote than to vote for the person that would be more likely to push policies that you agree with, even if you do not agree with ALL of their policies?

  61. [61] 
    neilm wrote:

    LWYH [59] Don't waste your time. It took me too long to twig that Michale was a smart troll. My bad, but I want to hear other opinions and Michale plays a good game. In the end you either leave, ignore, or, like Elizabeth, condescend. Engagement is as futile as trying to expect a rational conversation form a Vogon.

  62. [62] 
    neilm wrote:
  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is the EXACT kind of stupid, moronic and totally ridiculous hate-filled homophobic type bullshit that PROVES beyond any doubt that Michale is utterly contemptible.....

    How do you get "hate" "scared of gay people" out of the fact that some bigoted morons at Walmart thought that a THIN BLUE LINE cake is "racist"???

    If the cop had been gay, these bigoted morons would have fallen all over themselves to help him out...

    How does that make me scared of gay people???

    Your claim is non-sequitor...

    Michale

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ending tweets and/or comments with the word "sad" is sooo Trumpesque! Sad!

    So... You are saying you are "Trumpesque"??? :D

    Michale

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    LWYH [59] Don't waste your time. It took me too long to twig that Michale was a smart troll. My bad, but I want to hear other opinions and Michale plays a good game. In the end you either leave, ignore, or, like Elizabeth, condescend. Engagement is as futile as trying to expect a rational conversation form a Vogon.

    Ya know, Neal.. For someone who claims to be "ignoring" me, you seem to mention me a lot.. You remind me of a guy named Kevin..

    He "ignored" me too.. But mentioned me in every other comment of his.. :D

    Michale

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    So you believe that it is better to throw away your vote/refuse to vote than to vote for the person that would be more likely to push policies that you agree with, even if you do not agree with ALL of their policies?

    I think Al is saying that the lesser of two evils is STILL evil and that he would rather have a clear conscience than vote for evil...

    I don't agree with that, by the way... Sometimes you have to do bad things in order to do good...

    But I understand where Al is coming from and acknowledge that he has the right to feel that way without condemnation...

    Michale

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2602810

    So, it seems that Hillary is demanding special treatment from the moderator....

    She wants Holt to point out when Donald Trump lies, but ONLY when Donald Trump lies..

    Hillary doesn't want HER statements fact-checked..

    She also wants a special podium built to puff up her short stature... It's also rumored that Hillary's podium is being equipped with hidden syringes that will inject Hillary with adrenaline and a host of other drugs at the touch of a button... Finally, there is an inflatable base that will automatically inflate to catch Hillary when she collapses...

    All in all, it's going to be a fun debate.. :D

    Michale

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neal,

    Sometimes I even amaze myself. - Hong Kong Phooey

    Actually, it was Giles Prentice who said it in BROKEN ARROW...

    But why let a little thing like FACTS break up your perfect record of fact-less bullshit comments, eh? :D

    Michale

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    Listen,

    If the cop had been gay, these bigoted morons would have fallen all over themselves to help him out...

    How does that make me scared of gay people???

    Your claim is non-sequitor...

    But it's funny..

    You condemn me for some imagined "hate crime", but give the bigoted morons who refused to make a cop's retirement cake a pass...

    Your blood may be blue, but it's DEFINITELY Democrat Blue and not Cop Blue....

    Michale

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    Your blood may be blue, but it's DEFINITELY Democrat Blue and not Cop Blue....

    On the other hand.....

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/09/22/debating-the-debates/#comment-85200

    .... that comment would seem to belie my assessment...

    So, apparently, you are a conundrum.. And NOT the Frank Parker kind... :D

    Michale

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CtQMDYRWYAAKcVk.jpg

    hehehehehehehehe

    "It's funny cuz it's true.."
    -Fat Tony

    :D

    Michale

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    No ear mics allowed for debate moderators; But what about the candidates?
    http://www.worldtribune.com/no-ear-mics-allowed-for-presidential-debate-moderators-what-about-the-candidates/

    Interesting article..

    Are ear mics allowed for candidates during a debate???

    Michale

  73. [73] 
    TheStig wrote:

    neilm-62

    Another Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy fan! We Are Everywhere. Google is basically an implementation of Adams' fictional guide.

    “The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is an indispensable companion to all those who are keen to make sense of life in an infinitely complex and confusing Universe, for though it cannot hope to be useful or informative on all matters, it does at least make the reassuring claim, that where it is inaccurate it is at least definitively inaccurate. In cases of major discrepancy it's always reality that's got it wrong."

    Anyway, I've lived to see THAT SCI FI trope made mostly real.

    RE post 62, the problem with current self driving cars is that a "passenger" in the driver' seat still has mind the robot at all times. This is mostly passive hyper alertness is harder than actually driving. Ask a flight instructor. Especially the poor SOB who instructed me. "Other left"

    Once the technology matures, Self Driving Vehicles will be the bane of the Assisted Living Industry. Or so I hope.

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    The lead-up to the Brexit vote offers four important lessons to those who are fighting the forthcoming campaigns from an establishment position. They matter because some of the mistakes made by the pro-EU camp in the UK are being repeated elsewhere with the same enthusiasm.

    .....

    .....

    This leads us to a third lesson: do not insult or provoke the voters. After the Brexit referendum, the losing side kept on pointing out that pro-Brexit supporters were older and on average less educated. Hillary Clinton’s infamous depiction of half of Mr Trump’s supporters as deplorable fits the same category. The more you insult the other side, the more you end up driving undecideds into their camp.
    https://www.ft.com/content/5cd1626e-80b6-11e6-bc52-0c7211ef3198

    Ya see, this is EXACTLY what (most of) ya'all don't get about this election..

    Ya'all (most) think it's fun and hilarious and exciting to attack, vilify and insult Trump supports. We see that on a DAILY basis, here in Weigantia..

    But what the Left Wingery can't seem to get thru yer thick Party Uber Alles skulls is that for every Trump supporter that is insulted and attacked and vilified, there are 5 or 10 fence sitters who SEE these attacks and say to themselves, "No way I want to be associated with these types of asshats who attack and vilify people solely based on political bigotry!!"....

    And millions of brand new Trump voters are born.....

    Think about that the next time ya want to cheer as Hillary denigrates and vilifies tens of millions of Americans...

    Ya'all know I am not wrong...

    "Yer not wrong.."
    -God

    Even Chuck knows it.. :D

    Michale

  75. [75] 
    TheStig wrote:

    A very interesting discussion about poll data poll aggregation and forecast volatility.

    http://predictwise.com/blog/2016/09/poll-aggregation-fight/

    Rothschild is the most transparent prognosticator in the business... having a bit of a flame war with Nate Silver.

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    Walmart apologizes for refusing to make police officer’s cake
    http://www.macon.com/news/nation-world/national/article104188001.html

    Yea... *I'm* the bad guy here..

    The bigoted Left Wingery morons working at WalMart are as pure as the driven snow.. :^/

    Michale

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    Rothschild is the most transparent prognosticator in the business... having a bit of a flame war with Nate Silver.

    Funny how you NOW side with Rothschild when before your chosen "cat's meow" was Nate Silver...

    I am SUUUUURRREEEEE that the fact that Silver is saying things that you DON'T want to hear has NOTHING to do with your now devotion to Rothschild, eh?? :D

    The bigotry is so transparent... :D

    Michale

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    Voters See Debate Moderators Giving Clinton A Helping Hand
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/voters_see_debate_moderators_giving_clinton_a_helping_hand

    This debate thing coming from the Left is so sad and pathetic...

    It's not the moderator's job to call out candidate's statements either true or false... That is the CANDIDATE'S jobs...

    Put it another way... What would ya'all say to a Moderator who said, "Mr Trump, that is a very factual statement and a very good point. Mrs Clinton, your rebuttal??"

    Ya'all would lose yer frakin' minds if that happen!!

    Don't bother denying it because we ALL know it's true..

    So, why would ya'all want the moderator's to call out Trump's (and ONLY Trump's) bogus statements???

    The moderator's job is simply to ask the questions that facilitate the discussion, NOT to pass judgement on the validity of the answers... If Trump says some BS statement, it's up to Hillary to correct the record. Just as if Hillary says some BS statement, Trump will have to correct the record...

    Sounds to me ya'all just want to skip the debate and just declare Hillary the winner... :^/

    Michale

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    CNN/ORC polls: Trump, Clinton deadlocked in Colorado, Pennsylvania
    http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/26/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-colorado-pennsylvania-polls/index.html

    Wake up, Wake up, you little sleepy head....
    Get yer little buns outta bed...

    Wake up, Wake up, it's time to brush yer teeth...
    Make sure all your kids are fed....

    Ready to concede yer worried, Kick?? :D

    Michale

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    Proof that size DOES matter! Hillary gets customized podium to offset ten inch height difference with Trump ahead of tonight's debate - as latest polls put them neck and neck
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3806974/Presidential-debate-preparations-reach-final-stage-Hillary-Clinton-Donald-Trump-meet-Benjamin-Netanyahu.html

    Well, I am sure glad Camp Clinton is not asking for special considerations... :^/

    Michale

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    And it continues to be bad news, bad news and WORSE news for Clinton, as far as the EC vote goes..

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map.html

    MAINE had leaned Clinton now it's a tossup..

    MAIN CD2 was a tossup now it leans Trump...

    Nebraska CD2 had leaned Trump, now it's likely Trump...

    Illinois had been likely Clinton, now it just leans Clinton...

    And Colorado has gone from leaning Clinton to tossup...

    As I told ya'all last week and the week before...

    It's not the actual numbers that should concern Camp Clinton even though they are pretty bad...

    It's the MOMENTUM that should have ya'all panicking in yer boots....

    It's ALL Trump.....

    Michale

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    Debate Commissioner: "I Don't Think It's a Good Idea" For Moderators to Live Fact-Check Candidates
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/09/25/debate_commission_director_on_moderator_live_fact-checking_candidates_i_dont_think_its_a_good_idea.html

    Even the HEAD of the Presidential Debate Committee doesn't think it's a moderator's job to fact check the debatees...

    That's the debatees responsibility to call out their opponents on their "lies"..

    Not the moderators...

    Michale

  83. [83] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Even the HEAD of the Presidential Debate Committee doesn't think it's a moderator's job to fact check the debatees...

    Not surprising, since she's a Republican who once worked in the Reagan WH.

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    Not surprising, since she's a Republican who once worked in the Reagan WH.

    Using your reasoning, all the other Committee members are biased in favor of Clinton because they are all Clinton donors...

    OR.....

    It's more likely that the Committee members take their jobs seriously and run the debates without passion or prejudice...

    NNAAWWWWW.. Of COURSE that can't be it.. :^/

    Michale

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, you WANT the Moderator to fact check all of Hillary's BS statements about being "dead broke" and her email server???

    You really want that???

    No, of course you don't..

    You want the Moderator to fact-check ONLY Trump and give Hillary a pass....

    Michale

  86. [86] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Using your reasoning, all the other Committee members are biased in favor of Clinton because they are all Clinton donors.

    Do some research there before showing off that hip-shot. Janet H. Brown is executive director, meaning she's mostly responsible for keeping the lights on.

    There are actually two co-Chairmen, each a member of one of the major political parties (a perennial complaint of third parties).

    The other members of the Commission are equally divided between members of the two major political parties.

    Interestingly, Jill Stein once accused the Commission of having her tied to a chair during a debate she tried to crash.

  87. [87] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    So, you WANT the Moderator to fact check all of Hillary's BS statements about being "dead broke" and her email server?

    The fact-checkers will be out in force anyway, both during and after the debate, so bring it on.

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do some research there before showing off that hip-shot. Janet H. Brown is executive director, meaning she's mostly responsible for keeping the lights on.

    Yea, right..

    And a Chief EXECUTIVE Officer is in charge of accounts payable.. :D

    Brown is in charge of the Presidential Debate Committee.. There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE of bias on her part...

    I get it.. You need SOMETHING to hang your BS on.. So, the fact that the head lady is a Republican is all you got... :D

    The fact-checkers will be out in force anyway, both during and after the debate, so bring it on.

    And THAT is fine...

    They can fact-check til the cows come home..

    But it's NOT the moderator's job to fact check...

    Michale

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    'Sides, if the Moderator's actually fact-check... Hillary's history of BS statements and lies is MUCH more fertile ground than Trump's... :D

    Michale

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    @NBCNews Reports Hillary doing ANOTHER Mock #Debate RIGHT NOW! Wth? She's had 30 yrs! I guess it's tough memorizing lies w/brain damage

    — Stella ?????????? (@syoka68) September 26, 2016

    They’re going to wear her out before the debate starts!

    Hillary is, at this moment, practicing a mock debate. Interesting – she should be exhausted by 9PM.

    — CaptainJack (@TheJackOBrien) September 26, 2016

    Hillary must be really, REALLY worried.. :D

    Michale

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is how the debate is going to go tonight..

    Trump: "Did you have Vince Foster and Seth Rich killed?"

    Lester Holt: "You don't have to answer that!"

    Clinton: "I'll answer the question! You want answers?"

    Trump: "I think I'm entitled!"

    Clinton: "You want answers?"

    Trump: "I want the truth!"

    Clinton: "You can't handle the truth!"

    Trump: "Did you order them killed?"

    Clinton: "You're goddamn right I did!!!!"

    heh :D

    Michale

  92. [92] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Hmmm. So the Democrats want to discuss international relationships with particular attention to the roles and influence of the US and Russia in the Middle Eastern Theater,

    And the Trump folks want to discuss Vince Foster.

    This will be an interesting debate indeed.

  93. [93] 
    altohone wrote:

    Listen

    "So you believe that it is better to throw away your vote/refuse to vote than to vote for the person that would be more likely to push policies that you agree with, even if you do not agree with ALL of their policies?"

    I've never once said I wouldn't vote, and the false notion that voting for someone other than one of the establishment candidates is "throwing away" your vote belies a misguided belief in the establishment narrative.

    That said, none of that is particularly relevant to my comments to CW to which you are supposedly responding while actually changing the subject.
    I could speculate on your motivation for not wanting to discuss the issues I've raised, but that would also just serve to enable your desire to change the subject.

    It wasn't just Bernie voters who have problems with the policies both Hillary and Trump support.
    Tens of millions of voters in both parties who oppose those policies but who nonetheless voted for one of those two in the primaries and will vote for one of them in the general are being denied any discussion of those policies in the upcoming "debates".

    This is by design.
    Too many are comfortable with that reality.

    The framers of our Constitution had a lengthy debate about whether or not to include maladministration among the actionable offences for impeachment of our president, but in the end they decided that elections every four years were a sufficient recourse to addressing the problem.

    However, when both Repubs and Dems agree on policies that amount to maladministration, and (despite being private entities who can make and enforce rules to their own liking and advantage without recourse by our citizens or government) they collude with each other and their establishment media outlets to prevent any challenge to those policies through debates that exclude all discussion of those policies and by excluding third parties who WOULD challenge those policies, we are left with no effective recourse.

    The notion of democracy in our republic becomes a farce.

    The only remaining methods of challenging these policies (protests, petitions, criticism from independent media) didn't stop Bush or Obama from pursuing those horrendous policies, and they won't stop Hillary or Trump either.

    Giving your vote to either Trump or Clinton is a positive affirmation by all doing so that they are content with this farce.

    You are, I'm not.

    It is also true that our establishment is well aware of the power this farce of a system gives them.
    They use it to effectively advance the policies they want and attack the policies they dislike.
    That is why when a Dem is elected they attack the "sacred cows" of the left, and when a Repub is elected they attack the "sacred cows" of the right.
    A few of many examples-
    Bill Clinton attacked welfare and enacted mass incarceration knowing that Dems wouldn't effectively oppose him.
    Bush attacked rule of law, fiscal conservatism and our constitutional rights knowing that Repubs wouldn't effectively oppose him.
    Obama maintained the attack on rule of law and our constitutional rights, turned unnecessary and illegal military interventionism into a Democratic value, revived the economically and environmentally untenable nuclear industry, and opened the arctic and east coast to oil drilling and our national forests to fracking knowing that Dems wouldn't effectively oppose him.

    So, it's just not true that Hillary will only continue the policies I oppose while advancing some policies I agree with.
    You aren't paying sufficient attention if you believe that.

    A

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hmmm. So the Democrats want to discuss international relationships with particular attention to the roles and influence of the US and Russia in the Middle Eastern Theater,

    No, Democrats want to discuss why Trump exaggerated when he claimed he was "totally" against the Iraq war that Hillary Clinton voted for..

    Democrats want to put Mark Cuban front and center in the debate to embarrass Trump..

    THAT is what the Democrats are all about...

    This will be an interesting debate indeed.

    Yes it is, but not for the reasons you want to believe...

    What's going to be interesting is to see if Hillary collapses in the first 30 mins or in the last 30 mins...

    :D

    Michale

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    LI Teacher Faces Backlash Over Facebook Post Calling Students ‘Racist’
    http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/09/23/backlash-over-teacher-facebook-post/

    Leftist garbage like this is EXACTLY why Trump is going to be our next President..

    Michale

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    Statistics site 538, which is operated by Nate Silver, adjusted its projections ahead of the debate Monday, giving the odds to Republican nominee Donald Trump.

    If the election were held today, Trump leads with a 54.9 percent chance of winning the election, according to the site. The win projection stems from Trump winning the key battleground states of Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Nevada. The same projection shows Clinton winning Pennsylvania, Colorado, and Virginia.

    Read 'em and weep, people... :D

    Michale

  97. [97] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    A -

    I'm not going to attack your beliefs. Nearly every one of your concerns is also a concern of my own (albeit yours were couched in some very broad assertions). I daresay that most democrats agree with at least the spirit of all of your concerns, republicans don't appear at the moment to agree with any of them.

    (I don't personally agree that Obama has 'attacked the rule of law', but we can discuss that at some other time.)

    But the presidential race is a 'winner take all' contest, set up that way in the constitution. And, to quote the Highlander, "There can be only one."

    So our task as citizens then, is to decide which of these two candidates is to be president, or to lose the opportunity that we will have this November to influence American policy right now, rather than later, after a movement more to our liking has grown enough to actually challenge the status quo.

  98. [98] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Michale [96] -

    Whatsa matta wit you today? Go back and look again. 538 has Hillary leading Trump 54.6% to 45.4%, and by 14 EV.

    Weep yourself, my kind friend, for your eyes are filled with muddy goo..

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo#now

    Weep yourself...

    Hillary at 49.7% Trump at 50.3%

    *I* provide facts and links to back up my facts...

    Michale

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just to add insult to injury.. :D

    538 has Trump winning Ohio 70% to 30%

    Trump wins NC 68% to 32%

    Trump wins FL 63% to 37%

    Trump wins IA 79% to 29%

    Trump wins NV 64% to 36%

    Would you like me to go on??

    Or are you hurting enough already?? :D

    Michale

  101. [101] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Okey-dokey, I looked at the 538 website located at:

    http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

    And I am seeing an entirely different reality. Somebody drop in and confirm this, please.

  102. [102] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    The site says it was updated 8 minutes ago. Perhaps you dropped in while it was being updated? The numbers have changed on me, too. Now it says that Hillary's chances of beating Trump are 54% to 36%, and is now ahead 15 EV.

    Someone's messin' wit us.

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    I admit, that is weird.. :D

    We can just table this particular aspect until tomorrow morning.. AFTER the debate :D

    Michale

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CtQL3ujWEAAFS1m.jpg:large

    Yep.... Captain Steve Rogers is a Trump voter... :D

    Michale

  105. [105] 
    Paula wrote:
  106. [106] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    So now my prediction: Trump wins the first round.

    Not because he'll do especially well with his answers unless Holt loses his mind and asks him his favorite color (orange). He'll win because the bar for him has been set impossibly low (Amanda Terkel wrote on the Huffington post this morning that he only needs to 'show up and not vomit').
    Further, I'm sure that Ailes has advised him to 'hang a lantern' on his relative inexperience, i.e., "I may not know as much about the details of these things as Mrs. Clinton does, but what I do know is..." That'll help him weasel out of the tough parts - and dominate the rest.

    She, on the other hand, needs, I hear, to be presidential and yet relaxed, informed but not wonky, careful yet accessible. Unfortunately it goes on and on. I don't think I've ever seen a candidate given so much contradictory advice, and coming into a debate with such a high expectation of performance.

    So Trump will win this round, it's baked-in. But like Reagan and Obama, who also lost a first debate, Hillary will come back even better prepared for round two.

  107. [107] 
    altohone wrote:

    Balthy

    "I don't personally agree that Obama has 'attacked the rule of law', but we can discuss that at some other time"

    Sure. It is another time.
    Obama's failure to prosecute the Bushies for making torture US policy and the failure to prosecute the MASSIVE fraud on Wall Street are just two examples of his maintaining the attack on the rule of law.

    "albeit yours were couched in some very broad assertions"
    Nothing like a broad (as in non-specific to easily quotable assertions) assertion... :(
    My novel of a comment was already too lengthy, but if you want to get specific, I am willing to participate.

    I am glad you share my concerns.

    If Hillary wins, your "reform from within" approach that works on building the movement to challenge the status quo will be subverted by the party machinery (as they've been doing in all primary challenges from the left) to ensure Hillary is reelected... most likely unchallenged.
    But, if Hillary only wins with a plurality rather than a majority of the vote, a challenger from the left is more likely in four years.

    If Trump wins, I hope the futility of the Dem party and the establishment pushing a candidate who favors policies "most Democrats" disagree with (at least "in spirit") becomes apparent.
    And, hopefully the movement can become a reality unhindered by the ones who will be responsible for losing an election to an idiot like Trump.

    "republicans don't appear at the moment to agree with any of them"

    I have no idea how you got that impression, but corruption on Wall Street and the failure to prosecute it, offshoring jobs, the corrupting influence of Big Money on politics, and unjustifiable corporate subsidies are all policies many Republican voters oppose. Many facing pipelines on their property against their will and contamination of their water from fracking share our concerns. Large numbers oppose torture and NSA privacy/rights violations, and quite a few republicans supporting Gary Johnson are motivated by opposition to military interventionism and the drug war.
    (and with Trump on both sides of some of these issues, I think it's safe to say even some of his supporters mistakenly believe he isn't a status quo establishment lackey).

    The two party, one system establishment puts a lot of effort into trying to hide the "opposition in both parties" reality too.
    I don't think you should help them perpetuate this myth... though, if you were specifically talking about elected Repubs, I would agree, even though there are a handful of exceptions on some policies.

    Thanks for your response.
    A

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    All the pressure is on Hillary tonight and if she wobbles, wavers or walks into a Trump right hook, you can start counting her out

    This is the biggest and most eagerly awaited showdown the world’s seen since Muhammad Ali and George Foreman’s Rumble in the Jungle, 42 years ago.

    Only Trump-Clinton has every potential to even more brutal, and way more historic.

    The two least popular candidates in the history of US presidential races going head to head for the first time in what many believe is a winner-takes-all encounter.

    The stakes could not be higher or more dramatic.

    The two least popular candidates in the history of US presidential go head to head tonight in what many believe is a winner-takes-all encounter. The stakes could not be higher

    Foreman, famously, wielded what he called his ‘Anywhere’ punch. When a bemused Ali asked his training team exactly what that was, he was told: ‘Anywhere it hits, it breaks something.’

    For Foreman, read Trump - a giant bear of a man whose instinctive response to any confrontation is to unload (verbal) punches of unbelievable ferocity.

    Clinton’s dilemma is whether to stand toe-to-toe and trade those punches or do what Ali did that night in Zaire and soak them up for round after round before dancing off the ropes to deliver a stunning knock-out.

    Her problem is I don’t think either of those strategies will work.

    As we saw in the Republican primary debates, Trump is a formidable debater who likes nothing more than people either taking him on, or taking his blows.
    He will be in his absolute element tonight.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3807992/PIERS-MORGAN-pressure-Hillary-tonight-wobbles-wavers-walks-Trump-right-hook-start-counting-out.html#ixzz4LOeFBwMK

    That about sums things up perfectly...

    Trump has very little to lose...

    Hillary has EVERYTHING to lose....

    I wish I could stay up to watch it...

    But I'll let ya'all enjoy the spectacle without my kibbitzing... :D

    But be prepared for tomorrow morning...

    NO MERCY :D

    Michale

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    So Trump will win this round, it's baked-in. But like Reagan and Obama, who also lost a first debate, Hillary will come back even better prepared for round two.

    Assuming she actually SURVIVES Round 1 :D

    If she loses badly enough in Round 1, Round 2 and Round 3 won't matter...

    Michale

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    Really good Donald take-down: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/the-four-donald-trumps-you-meet-on-earth/501464/

    The problem is, it's nothing but wishful-thinking infused bullcarp...

    It has absolutely NOTHING to do with reality and EVERYTHING to do with political bigotry...

    Any Trump supporter could write the EXACT same essay, using Hillary as the villian with the exact same "facts" to support the piece...

    It's nothing but wishful thinking...

    You'll be shown this during the debate tonight. :D

    Michale

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CtTOYpWWEAAKLRQ.jpg

    BBBWWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    That sign epitomizes EVERYTHING that is wrong with this country in general and the Democrat Party in particular....

    "You might be exposed to things and ideas you might not like.. Please bring your portable "safe spaces" and pacifiers with you as none will be provided..."

    :^/

    Michale

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, honestly??

    When did the Democrat Party become The Wussy Party???

    Michale

  113. [113] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthasar,

    So Trump will win this round, it's baked-in.

    So, just so we're clear..

    You agree with me that Trump will win the debate tonight and Hillary will lose...

    Right??

    Michale

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    But like Reagan and Obama, who also lost a first debate, Hillary will come back even better prepared for round two.

    Reagan and Obama were unparalleled charismatic campaigners...

    By comparison, Hillary Clinton is a dead fish...

    If Hillary loses tonight, she is gone...

    Michale

  115. [115] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Balthasar [97]

    Thank you for stating the intent of my question to altohone far better than I did!

  116. [116] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    No one here defended the bakery's refusal to do a cake for a retiring police officer's party! NO ONE!

    Too bad the cop wasn't gay.. It wouldn't have been a problem..

    How do you know that the cop isn't gay? Please explain why they would have made the cake for a gay cop's retirement party but not a straight cop's?

    If you can't see how your attempt to pink wash this topic wouldn't be a problem, then nothing I would say is going to make a difference so I will just move on.

  117. [117] 
    neilm wrote:

    I think support for third party candidates is about to drop off slowly but inexorably during the month of October.

    Many people have been using Gary Johnson (and to a lesser extent, Jill Stein) as a parking place for their votes. Now the race is tightening the pressure will be on them "not to waste their vote".

    One of the reasons that Nate Silver gives for the high uncertainty built into his model is that the race is 43-41, unlike 2012 where it was 49-47 at a similar point.

    If, as I expect, we move to a settling in of the traditional R/D divisions (i.e. the combined vote grows from ~84% to low 90's), perhaps the demographics we expected to play a stronger role will emerge.

  118. [118] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    When did the Democrat Party become The Wussy Party?

    Republicans began seriously defining Democrats that way back during the Vietnam War, and the meme was used as early as Goldwater, who defined Kennedy's actions during the Cuban Missile Crisis as 'capitulation'. Later in the 60's, Buckley called Democrats "apologists" for the Russians (some things do change!). Even earlier than that was the famous disagreement between Wilson and Henry Luce over the role of a League of Nations. So it's been around awhile.

    It has no basis, by the way. Nixon was the President who ushered in the age of détente with China and the Soviets, Reagan who got so chummy with Gorbachev that they once agreed to do away with all of their nuclear weapons (at Reykjavík), before their respective advisors pulled them back.

    In the end, historians believe that Nixon unnecessarily prolonged the Vietnam War (and now we know that his people actually prevented a peace deal with the North Vietnamese in 1968), so all of that talk about 'wussies' was just cover for the failure of Nixon's own Vietnam policy.

    Ironically, it was Republicans who voted against direct involvement of the US in the Syrian war, a vote in which they opposed a coalition that included both Obama (Hillary) and John McCain.

  119. [119] 
    neilm wrote:

    Managed to get in front of a TV - my next call is 1pm Singapore time!

    Seconds out, round 1.

  120. [120] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Moderator not moderating.

  121. [121] 
    apophis wrote:

    Trump can't stop interrupting.

  122. [122] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Moderator trying, but the word salad keeps flying ong. Listening to Trump is like listening to a drunk uncle.

  123. [123] 
    Kick wrote:

    Drunk uncle! Well said.

    Trump sounding repetitious because he's out of his league and seems capable of a coherent answer that is on point. He seems angry and keeps interrupting because he can't contain himself. He's all spit and no facts. "Believe me... that I can tell you... I have friends... I am so great, great, great, not to brag but bragging... I... I... I... I... I..."

    Rinse, repeat.

  124. [124] 
    apophis wrote:

    He can't keep up with her...

  125. [125] 
    Kick wrote:

    Make that incapable of a coherent answer.

  126. [126] 
    neilm wrote:

    She has him rattled. He is all over the place. Real time fact checking on Hillary.com was smart.

  127. [127] 
    apophis wrote:

    I can't believe he's promoting his new hotel in Washington.

  128. [128] 
    Kick wrote:

    I can't believe he's promoting his new hotel in Washington.

    Priorities, you know... LOL

  129. [129] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Clinton is nothing if not agressive. She is starting to score points. In spite of the nonstop interuptions from Trump.

    Use sound proof booths for the next debate?

  130. [130] 
    Kick wrote:

    Oh, no. "We're not going to have a country." We need "law and order" and the "polices endorses me" and that's how I'm going to fix things because it's so dangerous. You walk down the street and you get shot. Where is this? But you just said it was Chicago....

    Stop and frisk. Unconstitutional. Take guns away. Oh, noes! Donald just said we need to take away guns.

    OMG!

  131. [131] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    moderator isn't doing his job.

  132. [132] 
    Kick wrote:

    4,000 people killed by guns.... Obama's fault.... You know, it's terrible... when you look.... slurrrrrrrppp... blah, blah, blah, Dallas.

    Leave Dallas out of this, little prick.

  133. [133] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Lester founds his balls!

    Who will stop and frisk Trump?

  134. [134] 
    apophis wrote:

    She's measured, deliberate, clear, and strong.

  135. [135] 
    apophis wrote:

    Hillary Clinton has learned how to bait Trump. He doesn't know how to not take it.

  136. [136] 
    Kick wrote:

    He's incoherent and seems focused on numbers, and what the hell is he even talking about? He can't NOT interrupt her.

  137. [137] 
    TheStig wrote:

    We don't need no stinkin' Constitution.

    This debate is suffering from the DTs ( Donald Trumpisms).

  138. [138] 
    apophis wrote:

    He is delusional!

    She is nailing him on the birther issue.

  139. [139] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Lester's is getting the hang of things...actually I already said that.

  140. [140] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Trump is doing a great Mussolini Impression. Hang in there Don! 20 minutes to go.

  141. [141] 
    neilm wrote:

    400 lb hackers - which conspiracy theory did that come from?

  142. [142] 
    Kick wrote:

    "I, I, I, I, I, I got endorsed." OMG... he just said something about a 400-pound person sitting on their bed "doing the hacking."

    I have a son with a computer. Maybe that little shit is doing the hacking. Hard to know. How much does the little shit weigh?

  143. [143] 
    apophis wrote:

    Lester speaks, your two minutes are expired Hillary, now back to the Trump rally

  144. [144] 
    apophis wrote:

    Ana Marie Cox ?@anamariecox 2m2 minutes ago

    If Trump leaves a $100 on HRC’s podium tonight it’s bc he’s used to having to pay women to whip him like this.
    49 retweets 76 likes

  145. [145] 
    Kick wrote:

    If Trump leaves a $100 on HRC’s podium tonight it’s bc he’s used to having to pay women to whip him like this.
    49 retweets 76 likes

    LOL :) Good one

  146. [146] 
    neilm wrote:

    NATO nations aren't paying their way - but then, Donald isn't paying any taxes either.

  147. [147] 
    apophis wrote:

    trump explaining away his stupidity about the war. bringing up hannity is not a winning tactic.

  148. [148] 
    TheStig wrote:

    The solution to ISIS is more pumps, fatster pumps, more tankers, bigger tankers?

    Deep down, I keep expecting big men in white coats , nets and syringes to intervene.....Beautiful Mind Style. Trump moves comfortablly thru crazy town.

    Holt just politely called Trump a liar about ihis position on Iraq. It's all Shawn Hanity's fault.

  149. [149] 
    Kick wrote:

    OMG! "Sean Hannity" can vouch for me. Call him up. Blah, blah, blah! :) My strongest argument is my temperament.... DAMN YOU!

  150. [150] 
    apophis wrote:

    folks, stick a fork in trump, he's done.

  151. [151] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Trump is starting to look sleepy. Clinton has gained the initiative.

  152. [152] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    as i recall prior debates had a timer, so candidates wouldn't go on ten minute rants.

  153. [153] 
    TheStig wrote:

    And we end it Trump on nukes....scary and sad...

    Signing off, it's been interesting.

  154. [154] 
    Kick wrote:

    OMG, now Trump is saying our military is not keeping up with other countries. Tag his toe, he's done!

    Who is Secretary Curry?

  155. [155] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    What's up with that snorting noise that Big Orange keeps making? Is he choking?

  156. [156] 
    neilm wrote:

    I'm completely biased because I think Trump is an ignorant jerk, but even so, I think he just got his ass handed to him.

  157. [157] 
    Kick wrote:

    Is he choking?

    In more ways than one. :) *snort*

  158. [158] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    She started it!

  159. [159] 
    Kick wrote:

    Now he is whining about HRC's ads being "not nice" to him. Boo hoo. What a whiny POS. :)

  160. [160] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Lock her up. Shoot her for treason. If she wins, I'll support her.

  161. [161] 
    apophis wrote:

    And the winner is: Lester Holt.. I thought he did fairly well...

  162. [162] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Trump looked weak and snorted like he had the swine flu. Hilrod looked strong. So much for that gaslight strategy.

  163. [163] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @apophis,

    are you kidding? lester holt did absolutely nothing to moderate the timing and interruptions. it might have even saved donald if his rants had been more forcefully cut off instead of allowed to continue uninterrupted.

  164. [164] 
    Kick wrote:

    I like the fact that Lester allowed Trump to be himself and look like a stupid fool. :)

  165. [165] 
    neilm wrote:

    Hillary was ready for the "stamina" attack - brutal reply. Bringing up the Benghazi hearings was a calculated risk, but it worked for her.

  166. [166] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    I only watched the last half hour as The Donald's stamina was waning and the word salad was really flying. He should have practiced. He drank too much water, too. I think he needed to pee.

  167. [167] 
    apophis wrote:

    Gregory Hardy ?@HardyVision 6m6 minutes ago

    If Trump was coked up tonight, there goes his argument that Mexico doesn't send its best.

  168. [168] 
    neilm wrote:

    Great comment on CNN: "Don't get peevish about how great your temperament is".

  169. [169] 
    apophis wrote:

    DEBATE LIE COUNT: Trump 16, Clinton 0

  170. [170] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @apophis,

    16-0! it's that winning temperament.

    JL

  171. [171] 
    neilm wrote:

    I got one Hillary inaccuracy: NATO is NOT the longest military alliance in history - but not a big deal.

  172. [172] 
    Paula wrote:

    Watched the debate with a bunch of HRC volunteers -- have never done that before. Good time as the debate went very well from our pov!

    I think Trump went in thinking he could do his usual thing and it didn't work. They had CNN on with a split screen -- is that what everyone saw? -- and she looked great throughout, while he grimaced and frowned and yelled. She was either serious looking or smiling, and sometimes laughing. But she never rolled her eyes, which is a testament to her self-control, or otherwise made any visual errors. His interruptions in the beginning were worrying because we didn't know how long she was going to be able to tolerate them without snapping in some way -- but Holt admonished him and he backed off -- although he threw in a few more here and there.

    But the turning point was when she said his father had given him $14 million to get his business started and that was pretty early in the debate. You could see him getting angry, and then he felt compelled to defend himself on that -- she'd rattled him. And I think it went downhill for him from there. He had his moments, but he spent most of his time reacting to her versus getting her to react to him. He pretty much admitted he's paid no taxes, said something about people not doing good enough work to be paid fully, and reiterated his view that Rosie O'Donnell deserved to be called a pig. And we should have taken the oil. And he virtually never directly responded to a question -- he always went off into weird places and often descended into near word-salad. Not quite as badly as he did in the Town Hall -- but close.

    The returns tonight are pretty solidly in her favor.

    The interesting thing will be how he approaches Debate #2 -- if he shows. Because he's now learned he can't beat her, at least, not by doing his usual thing. In his mind he defeated everyone else that way and I think he felt she'd go down just like all the repubs in the primary. She didn't. Most people think she won in a big way. How does the Donald handle that?

  173. [173] 
    Bleyd wrote:

    I thought up a counter talking point that I think could work well for Clinton the next time Trump puts forth "Stop and Frisk" and the idea of him being the "law and order" candidate. Let me know how you folks think it would go over.

    "Mr. Trump claims to be the candidate of "law and order". Well, I would prefer to be the candidate of "justice". Law and order is important, but without justice, law and order is nothing more than tyranny, and I see no justice in a law that allows innocent citizens to be harassed and treated as potential criminals simply due to the color of their skin."

  174. [174] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Post-debate snap reactions column is now up!

    Woo hoo! Check it out:

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/09/26/first-debate-reactions/

    -CW

  175. [175] 
    Paula wrote:

    [173] Bleyd: I like it!

  176. [176] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Good talking point, Bleyd [173].

    I watched the debate with my brother, an avid golfer, and his assessment was that Trump scored a disappointing +6 after a terrible back nine that included at least one triple-bogey. Hillary finished with an eagle putt for a solid 3-under to take the match and the purse(heh).

    I have to admit that I was completely wrong in my earlier prediction of the night [106]: Hillary started the debate with high expectations and met every one of them.

    Trump, who only had to act presidential for ninety minutes or so, began the debate alarmingly serene (may I call you Secretary Clinton?), but became increasingly annoyed as the debate went on.

    And perhaps we should be inquiring more closely into HIS health, as he's sniffling and grunting alot. She looked fine, never so much as cleared her throat for the whole time, and had a great answer on the subject of 'stamina'.

    But Trump's worst moment came on the topic of Nuclear policy, where his lack of preparation and plain lack of knowledge overwhelmed him, and he fell into an uncanny valley of incoherence. It was both fascinating and deeply alarming.

    I don't think he'll lose his base (he could stand on 5th avenue and shoot someone, etc., etc.), but he may have harmed himself irreparably with the College educated women that he's been a-courtin' lately, particularly with his remarks about Rosie O'Donnell. It could have been worse - he hasn't called Ellen names yet.

  177. [177] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, let me say right off the bat, that I am very surprised that Hillary made it thru the whole debate without a medical episode...

    Shocking..

    Michlae

  178. [178] 
    Michale wrote:

    Listen,

    No one here defended the bakery's refusal to do a cake for a retiring police officer's party! NO ONE!

    Yes you did. By omission...

    You ignored what those bigoted morons did and instead, accused me of being afraid of gay people..

    How do you know that the cop isn't gay? Please explain why they would have made the cake for a gay cop's retirement party but not a straight cop's?

    Are you serious? Because everyone knows that the Democrat Party bends over six ways from sunday to pander to gay people..

    If you can't see how your attempt to pink wash this topic wouldn't be a problem, then nothing I would say is going to make a difference so I will just move on.

    It ISN'T a problem. It's just another example of how you ignore the main point because you can't address the bigotry of your chosen Party...

    Michale

  179. [179] 
    Michale wrote:

    Republicans began seriously defining Democrats that way back during the Vietnam War,

    And Democrats continue to re-enforce that definition with totally wussy stuff like "trigger warnings" and "safe spaces" and totally stoopid crap like that...

    My gods, this next generation is going to be TOTALLY incapable of handling life....

    There's no "safe spaces" or "trigger warnings" in life, snowflakes..

    Michale

  180. [180] 
    Michale wrote:

    Republicans began seriously defining Democrats that way back during the Vietnam War,

    And Democrats continue to re-enforce that definition with totally wussy stuff like "trigger warnings" and "safe spaces" and totally stoopid crap like that...

    My gods, this next generation is going to be TOTALLY incapable of handling life....

    There's no "safe spaces" or "trigger warnings" in life, snowflakes..

    Michale

  181. [181] 
    Michale wrote:

    On an unrelated note..

    CLOWN WARNINGS ISSUED AHEAD OF HALLOWEEN SEASON

    Some customers say the second greatest risk beyond terrifying children might just be a clown losing their life.

    "You come out of the woods dressed like that, come out on the wrong person, they have a gun, could be your life in danger," says customer Hunter Sanders. "Its not worth your life for a simple joke."
    http://abc13.com/news/clown-warnings-issued-ahead-of-halloween-season/1526597/

    All things being equal...

    Anyone who shoots a clown for simply dressing as a clown is going to go to jail... :^/

    Period..

    Michale

  182. [182] 
    Michale wrote:

    My gods, this next generation is going to be TOTALLY incapable of handling life....

    There's no "safe spaces" or "trigger warnings" in life, snowflakes..

    I read somewhere that, during the Michael Brown shooting riots, a Harvard professor excused students from a final exam if they were feeling "stressed" over the Brown shooting...

    W......T......F......???!!!

    What a great lesson that is for our future lawyers...

    I can just see it now. One of those "stressed" snowflakes gets a job with a law firm.. On the day of a big case he/she goes to her boss...

    "I am sorry, but I can't do the opening statement for the trial. A black guy 2000 miles away was shot and killed while trying to rob a bank.. I didn't know the guy, but he is black like I am and so I am feeling really REALLY stressed, so I can't do it.. I know, I know.. An innocent man's life hangs in the balance, but I need my safe space today... 'Sides, that innocent man is a white guy so he really isn't 'innocent', so..... Sorry.. I am retreating to my safe space now.."

    A total luser, courtesy of the Democrat Party... :^/

    Michale

  183. [183] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Bleyd -173

    Very well put! If you REALLY want to see some law and order in the USA, write in Vladimir Putin! He'll write the laws and give the orders.

    Law and order without justice are just pasties covering fascism.

  184. [184] 
    Michale wrote:

    In growing trend, colleges offer ball pits for students seeking emotional satefy
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/09/26/in-growing-trend-colleges-offer-ball-pits-for-students-seeking-emotional-satefy.html

    BBBWWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Whew.. Glad I got that.... oh wait..

    BBBBBWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Ooomigods, ooomigods..... that's funny....

    Democrats at their finest.....

    hehehehehehehehehe

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.