Open Thread: Your Take on the Debate 9/27/16

Posted on September 27, 2016 by markinaustin

There was a debate last night.  International currency traders thought HRC won, 15 minutes in, and did not change their opinion going forward.  This was explained this morning by an executive at Forex.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/09/27/trump-lost-the-debate-in-first-few-minutes-according-to-currency-markets-and-gamblers/

Your thoughts?

Filed under: Open Thread |

« »

23 Responses

  1. markinaustin, on September 27, 2016 at 8:37 am said:

    A debate Open Thread here, so that we have the option of separating out any reactions to last night from other more interesting stuff.

    I thought HRC did well, controlling the pitch of her voice so that she did not rise into the dreaded shrillness, and only faulted her performance on the occasional smirks in the latter part of the evening.

    I thought DJT lost, decisively, but made a few good points if you were actually listening. For example, he touched on high corporate taxes and trapped money overseas, but never could get a coherent message out through his stream-of-consciousness rambling.

    Or so I thought.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    • ScottC, on September 27, 2016 at 9:43 am said:

      I didn’t watch it either.

      In the best of circumstances I think these “debates” are mostly a waste of time. And these two candidates hardly represent the best of circumstances. Using these events to help decide who to vote for is like a football coach deciding who should be the starting quarterback by asking his qb’s to stage competing press conferences.

      I am with Kevin Williamson:

      http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440373/2016-presidential-debates-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-spectacle

      That some part of this republic’s well-being should be dependent upon a ceremonial exchange of words between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Donald Trump — two of the most dishonest, vapid, and empty human-shaped things in American public life — is enough to induce despair. But millions will watch, and one must wonder what, exactly, it is they hope to get out of it….
      —
      …In any case, we really ought to stop pretending that these debates are debates, or that anybody is watching to learn which candidate has the more plausible plan for reducing the deficit or putting the economy back on a path toward more robust growth. (Neither of the candidates has anything like an intelligent program for the budget or the economy, in fact.) Any voter who has an IQ above that of an item on the appetizer menu at an oyster bar knows that neither one of these candidates is much inclined to tell the truth about anything, and that so-called plans are vaguely defined marketing schemes that rarely if ever have anything to do with what a president does once in office.

      Like

      Reply
  2. novahockey, on September 27, 2016 at 9:11 am said:

    reposing from last thread:

    i didn’t watch, so can’t comment. but this is crazy:
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map.html

    reading a little of the coverage. .liked this form NRO’s Geraghty: This was a terrible night for Donald Trump, so he’ll probably surge in the polls.

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/440436/if-night-doesnt-save-hillarys-campaign-nothing-will

    Like

    Reply
  3. jnc4p, on September 27, 2016 at 10:04 am said:

    I didn’t watch it either. Judging anecdotally from my Facebook feed, there were more people than I thought who weren’t paying close attention until the debate and while most of them were posting about “worst choice/candidates ever”, etc, Trump came out the worse.

    I would also expect viewership to fall off for subsequent debates. I believe that a lot of the independent/undecided/clueless voters have seen all they needed to see.

    Like

    Reply
    • Michigoose, on September 27, 2016 at 2:10 pm said:

      I don’t know what feed he was watching, but Mr Trump certainly was at his most word saladie and bullying. I didn’t think that he came across as “not scary” except for the first 11 minutes or so.

      Like

      Reply
      • Kevin S. Willis, on September 27, 2016 at 5:00 pm said:

        He would inherently come across as scary to people who would never vote for him in the first place. But not scary to people who might or might not vote for you is insufficient. He came off as incapable of restraint, unable to resist the opportunity to shoot himself in the foot, too impatient or lazy to get a command of the facts, even those that would help him . . . also, rude and so desperate to argue he wouldn’t listen to what he was arguing against.

        Which is the reverse of the scary problem: people who were always going to vote for Trump might cheer his rudeness and the interruptions and whatnot, but they don’t really matter, either. It’s people who would like to vote for Trump, for whatever reason, if only he would seem presidential/competent/focused.

        For the GOP, I think HRC would be the clear choice. Midterms will go much bette for the GOP with Hillary in the Oval Office than they will if Trump wins.

        Like

        Reply
  5. Brent Nyitray, on September 27, 2016 at 11:39 am said:

    I can’t see anyone switching their vote over this debate. The most likely outcome is that the undecideds stay home.

    Like

    Reply
    • novahockey, on September 27, 2016 at 12:18 pm said:

      in that case, all hail President Trump.

      Like

      Reply
    • markinaustin, on September 27, 2016 at 12:40 pm said:

      Gary Johnson would have come over well, I think.

      He could have talked about HRC’s greatly expanded taxation, especially her threat to expand corporate taxes in a world where our competitors are lower corporate tax countries, and made DJT’s mumblefucked points for him there, but he could have exposed DJT’s crash the budget into a still deeper canyon plan better than HRC did. That would have been because DJT’s most costly initiatives are somewhat like D boilerplate, so all she could attack were his concurrent tax cuts.

      On FP, Johnson’s leeriness of wars of choice would have scored well with many, and poorly with many others, but in a nonpartisan sort of way. My guess is he would have come out stronger, the way Perot did.

      Like

      Reply
  6. novahockey, on September 27, 2016 at 2:21 pm said:

    The internals I just saw from some focus groups. — brutal. for clinton. Trump cleaned up. unbelievable. “change” “gets it” etc.

    Like

    Reply
    • ScottC, on September 27, 2016 at 2:36 pm said:

      nova:

      The internals I just saw from some focus groups. — brutal. for clinton. Trump cleaned up. unbelievable. “change” “gets it” etc.

      I suspect that the people who are swayed by these “debates” are looking for/at totally different things than the partisans who are usually the ones doing the professional analyzing.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
      • Kevin S. Willis, on September 27, 2016 at 5:04 pm said:

        I think a nationalist and a nativist message that doesn’t worry over social/moral issues like gay marriage will tend to do well the majority of the American electorate . . . if the message gets out there into the larger market, beyond political junkies and dedicated partisans.

        Like

        Reply
    • jnc4p, on September 27, 2016 at 3:18 pm said:

      If Trump polls higher after the debate, I expect full fledged panic.

      Like

      Reply
  7. jnc4p, on September 27, 2016 at 4:57 pm said:

    Worth a read:

    “What Would It Mean for France to Accommodate Muslims?
    A philosopher grapples with Islam, secularism, and their place in society.

    David Frum Sep 26, 2016 ”

    http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/09/islam-france-pierre-manent/501626/

    Like

    Reply

Leave a reply to jnc4p Cancel reply