Polls: Clinton Wins Second Debate by Narrower Margin than First

[Acim]

Let me just say that we don't at all agree about Trump's supposed specifics, but I do agree with you that Hillary hasn't given any either on exactly how costs could be lowered. Also, over and over again the moderators had to try and get Trump to get into specifics, but all he did most of the time was to either get into general platitudes or he would switch to a different topic.

My overarching point is that neither of them got much into specifics. There's a teeny tiny bit of that in the debate. Can't say it doesn't occur at all. But because it does occur so little, it is challenging in both the first 2 debates to understand how one determines "winning the debate." To me, it truly shows up as a variation of confirmation bias. And/or is based on criteria that would be nice to know going in, like: whoever interrupts the least, wins! Or whoever attacks the other opponent's character more (accurately), wins! Or whoever the (biased) moderators scold the least, wins!

Does anyone reading this want to state what they think is meant by "winning the debate?"

My version would be whoever presents the most specifics of their stated policy positions (presumably found on their website) and can connect those specifics in direct answers to questions that are asked. Actually, I see that as basis just to be in contention of actually winning. One would assume both would do this. Then it would be about who is better at persuading people during the debate to support that as most rational policy decisions going forward.

Under my criteria, both Hillary and Trump were not in contention for winning the debate. Both "lost" but more accurately, America loses because the top 2 most viable candidates are (thus far) unable to engage in a debate that deals with specifics of their policy positions.

Instead, we have partisan politics with a whole lot of LW/RW media hype trying to tell us there are "clear winners" which amounts to either unspecified criteria of ever so slightly edging out on items that put them in contention, but where neither comes close to actually getting there.

Finally, do I believe for one minute that these Republicans could agree on some sort of plan for universal health-care coverage? Notta chance.

I do. I think they'd fare better.

 

[Scuba Pete]

it is challenging in both the first 2 debates to understand how one determines "winning the debate."

For me that is determined by the swing in the National polls. Hillary has gained support after both debates, so she obviously won. The only important poll will come in November.

 

[Acim]

His mental health was in question. The more you make this out to be "Us against the Muslims" the more you encourage any disturbed person with a tenuous connection with Muslims to align with them to justify their horrible actions.

Who's the "you" in the above quote by you? And where in the debate did this occur?

Sure he did. His laser focus on pushing his inflammatory rhetoric of "Radical Islamic Terrorism" implicates all of Islam.

It surely does not implicate all of Islam. That would be extreme bias on your end, to the point where you are now the one engaging in Islamophobia.

Would be like saying White Supremacists is the invoking language that implicates all White people, therefore we should never talk about White Supremacists because of that implication. Better to pretend like they don't exist as it turns off a whole lot of white people from addressing the issue, and just stating that doesn't solve anything.

Why didn't we refer to Radical Christian Terrorism in regards to the bombings of Planned Parenthood?

We could. I imagine why is because there was no visible army based somewhere on the planet, setting up training camps, putting out (inter)national messages indicating that they will not stop their fight until all clinics/buildings engaging in abortion are destroyed. Perhaps other factors. In my book, as a Christian, I see it as Radical Christian Terrorism to engage in such action. If I came across a fellow Christian saying they thought it justifiable, I imagine having a hardball discussion with them. If instead I played it off as not a big deal, and they showed me room full of bombs they are prepared to use, I as a Christian would consider it wise to let authorities know what I saw.

Call it what it is: terrorism. If you want to add a modifier, call it cowardly. Just don't legitimize it by attaching it to a religion.

I do not see how attaching the religious label to it, delegitimizes the religion. Without the other labels of "radical" and "terrorism" in there, then yes it plausibly becomes phobia/prejudice against the religion. But if the people engaging in "terrorism" are before, during and after their attacks stating justification for the attacks based on their interpretation of some (well known) religious tenets, I think it wise to call that out, as radical form of that religion. And to do everything possible to get people, namely those identifying with that religion (the non radical version) as on the side that wishes to dismantle that radical ideology.

 

[Acim]

For me that is determined by the swing in the National polls. Hillary has gained support after both debates, so she obviously won.

That would deny all other factors then (i.e. leaked information, ads, rallies, etc.)

The only important poll will come in November.

Correct. And why polls after the debate don't really matter in terms of "who won the debate?" But I'll grant that it (other polling) is another ambiguous way we currently have of determining who won (the debate).

 

[Scuba Pete]

That would deny all other factors then (i.e. leaked information, ads, rallies, etc.)

Not deny, but include.

 

[metis]

For me that is determined by the swing in the National polls. Hillary has gained support after both debates, so she obviously won. The only important poll will come in November.

Yes, but the "big debate" he has lost, at least at this point, is with his recorded words that have demeaned women, Mexicans, a handicapped man, etc. For Hillary and the Democrats, he's the gift that keeps giving, and he has only himself to blame-- which he will never do of course.

 

[Acim]

Not deny, but include.

Hard to decipher, then. I'm thinking the leaked tapes right now play more into the gap than whatever some perceive Hillary did at the debate that Donald didn't do.

 

[Acim]

For Hillary and the LW media, he's the gift that keeps giving, and he has mostly the Clinton Machine to blame-- which he will never do, if he wishes to remain alive.

Fixed your quote for accuracy.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Hard to decipher, then. I'm thinking the leaked tapes right now play more into the gap than whatever some perceive Hillary did at the debate that Donald didn't do.

No raindrop takes responsibility for the flood. All of this is cumulative. Trying to determine discrete benefits or detriments from a specific event or phrase might be academic, but in the end it really doesn't matter. November counts.

 

[Acim]

No raindrop takes responsibility for the flood. All of this is cumulative. Trying to determine discrete benefits or detriments from a specific event or phrase might be academic, but in the end it really doesn't matter. November counts.

Your words ought to be the title of every RF thread that wishes to discuss the latest round of debates (as if there are 'clear winners').

 

[Wirey]

My wife and I watched, and I though Clinton looked more Presidential, but I think it was only a comparison thing. If someone competent had been sitting across from her she probably would have failed badly.

 

[metis]

Fixed your quote for accuracy.

Nice try, but I don't think anyone looking at this with any kind of objective mind will likely agree that it's "LW media" and "the Clinton machine" that has caused this mess with Trump. Trump has done it to Trump, and that should be abundantly clear by now. But if it floats your boat, ...

 

[Acim]

Nice try, but I don't think anyone looking at this with any kind of objective mind will likely agree that it's "LW media" and "the Clinton machine" that has caused this mess with Trump. Trump has done it to Trump, and that should be abundantly clear by now. But if it floats your boat, ...

I think it is a mixture of both. Not like Trump leaked the tapes, nor perpetuated the puritanical nonsense of being grossly offended by it.

 

[Mindmaster]

They do and would all get a medical screening though, but can see the other points.

We'd hope, they've been a doing a bang up job of vetting terrorists, not. Anyway, once the diseases have landed there is endemic potential. Quarantine is not as effective as simply walling them out of your country. Many diseases have a period where they are contagious, but not visible so looking at someone for symptoms isn't going to stop it from coming in.

Ultimately, I feel our duty is to our own citizens first and everyone else has to be secondary.

 

[Lyndon]

Obviously you don't believe in equality, or all men are created equal, my guess is if you were to rank the importance of people, you would be on top!!

 

[Mindmaster]

Obviously you don't believe in equality, or all men are created equal, my guess is if you were to rank the importance of people, you would be on top!!

I don't believe all women and men are created equal because history doesn't bear out the notion. Some most people are average, a small portion are worthless or stellar. But, that has nothing to do with my idea of helping out. People living in **** hole countries have **** hole countries because they allowed that to happen, so before you cry a river realize that's what you'd bring here.

Send them food, or materials to erect shelter? Sure, I'm all in. Move them down the street? No, especially since they hate our guts. Our duty to our men, women, and children is higher than our duty to others outside of our borders.

When is the last time Turkey or Saudi Arabia mailed us goods, or money for a local disaster? Yep, never. Moving on.

 

[leibowde84]

They want Clinton either because she'll screw over one of their enemies, or weaken us. Really, that simple.

They see Trump for the supremely dangerous, egocentric and incredibly ignorant buffoon that he is. Clinton, they see as a run of the mill dishonest politician that probably won't do much harm. Seems like an easy choice to me.

 

[Mindmaster]

They see Trump for the supremely dangerous, egocentric and incredibly ignorant buffoon that he is. Clinton, they see as a run of the mill dishonest politician that probably won't do much harm. Seems like an easy choice to me.

Yes, if surrendering your freedoms, making all of the laws favor Wall St, and being covered in hostile migrants is cool with you then you should vote for her. If it doesn't disturb you to have a sexual predator in the White House, then by all means vote for her. If the cognitive dissonance of importing radical Islam and claiming to support LGBT or women's rights doesn't offend your common sense, then by all means, vote for her. If you see nothing wrong with this country please continue to vote in Clinton or Bush surrogate Presidents until they sell us out completely and destroy everything that used to be important. Keep voting to take away every right, and every part of the American dream, which people died for, by voting for Clinton.

Many of you have never faced a situation where you would have to die to protect this country, but you certainly seem to have no problem giving it all away without nothing but one careless vote. You can always get by the easy way, on your knees.

 

[leibowde84]

Yes, if surrendering your freedoms, making all of the laws favor Wall St, and being covered in hostile migrants is cool with you then you should vote for her. If it doesn't disturb you to have a sexual predator in the White House, then by all means vote for her. If the cognitive dissonance of importing radical Islam and claiming to support LGBT or women's rights doesn't offend your common sense, then by all means, vote for her. If you see nothing wrong with this country please continue to vote in Clinton or Bush surrogate Presidents until they sell us out completely and destroy everything that used to be important. Keep voting to take away every right, and every part of the American dream, which people died for, by voting for Clinton.

Many of you have never faced a situation where you would have to die to protect this country, but you certainly seem to have no problem giving it all away without nothing but one careless vote. You can always get by the easy way, on your knees.

1. Wall Street has always been favored on Capitol Hill, so no real change there.
2. Trump is a sexual predator, and Bill Clinton is not running for president. So, I'd rather have one as "first man" than the President. And, Hillary should in no way be judged by the actions of her husband in the 90s.
3. She in no way has "imported radical Islam", but I do support helping the refugees fleeing radical Islam in the Middle East, as it is very obviously the right thing to do. Those people really need our help. I understand that there is a real risk in helping them, but doing the right thing means taking risks to help people who need it.
4. I do think that there are problems with this country, but I also see very clearly that Trump's plans would put us into far more debt than Clinton's, he has 0 experience in running any kind of government, He's been an incredibly dishonest businessman, shorting and robbing contractors left and right, forcing many to go out of business. All in all, he would be a disaster for this country, whereas Clinton would most likely not be much of a change. So, it's either plummet to the ground, or stay put. I choose staying put.

I am not a Clinton fan, but I cannot say that I remember hating another living human being more than I hate Donald Trump. He is a horrible person, far more dishonest than Hillary (which is really something), he has no concern for anyone but himself, and would obviously enact legislative and executive action to benefit his own businesses, which is evidenced by the fact that he refuses to put his businesses in a blind trust. Instead he is going to leave control of his businesses with his family, which is probably the most obvious conflict of interest I have seen in my lifetime.

 

[Mindmaster]

1. Wall Street has always been favored on Capitol Hill, so no real change there.
2. Trump is a sexual predator, and Bill Clinton is not running for president. So, I'd rather have one as "first man" than the President. And, Hillary should in no way be judged by the actions of her husband in the 90s. The only reason Clinton is not in jail RIGHT NOW is because of the statute of limitations.
3. She in no way has "imported radical Islam", but I do support helping the refugees fleeing radical Islam in the Middle East, as it is very obviously the right thing to do. Those people really need our help. I understand that there is a real risk in helping them, but doing the right thing means taking risks to help people who need it.
4. I do think that there are problems with this country, but I also see very clearly that Trump's plans would put us into far more debt than Clinton's, he has 0 experience in running any kind of government, He's been an incredibly dishonest businessman, shorting and robbing contractors left and right, forcing many to go out of business. All in all, he would be a disaster for this country, whereas Clinton would most likely not be much of a change. So, it's either plummet to the ground, or stay put. I choose staying put.

I am not a Clinton fan, but I cannot say that I remember hating another living human being more than I hate Donald Trump. He is a horrible person, far more dishonest than Hillary (which is really something), he has no concern for anyone but himself, and would obviously enact legislative and executive action to benefit his own businesses, which is evidenced by the fact that he refuses to put his businesses in a blind trust. Instead he is going to leave control of his businesses with his family, which is probably the most obvious conflict of interest I have seen in my lifetime.

1. Yes, but that doesn't mean it has to be favored from the POTUS drivers seat.

2. Trump has never been charged with a single crime, nor has he paid any women as a part of a civil lawsuit. Bill Clinton has been forced to settle nearly $1mil in suits. Your accusations are unsupported by any facts. Being a womanizer doesn't make you a rapist, sorry.

3. Hillary is so involved in the creation of ISIS it's silly. She takes money from Saudi Arabia who funds Wahabists and Sunnis involved. She literally can't go after them, she's employed by them, lol.

4. Debt is irrelevant if you have jobs, taxes will track with economic improvement. If she's so great at economic improvement why are all the bailouts, and whatever else falling apart on her terms as a Senator? What great plan did she have to fix the scenario? Her "plan" was to go along with the establishment and write 9 trillion worth of checks. Sorry, not buying it. Dishonesty? Any time the guy has been accused of anything and he was involved he's apologized for it. You can call him anything you want, but dishonest is a stretch. Hillary is completely 100% two-faced, and can't even admit to her role in threatening Bill Clinton's victims.

If anything he enacts with an executive order benefits him, it's going to benefit most of us as well. This is just the silliest argument on the planet, and again unfounded. Go ahead and look up Bush, Clinton, and Obama executive orders or pardons. Drug dealers, terrorists, and other criminals pardoned. The leaving business to his family thing is hilarious too, I mean anyone is going to do this -- the Presidency is 2x a full time job.