╌>

Calm, informed, reasonable: Trump scores at final debate

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  xxjefferson51  •  8 years ago  •  14 comments

Calm, informed, reasonable: Trump scores at final debate
Bottom line: in the third and final presidential debate, Trump had his best outing yet. He was calm, informed and reasonable, and managed to again put Hillary on the defensive.


He will have shored up support among conservatives by taking strong stances against abortion and in favor of gun rights. But by pressing those positions, and by not addressing family or education issues, he probably gained no ground with women, and that could cost him the election.

The drama of the debate, though, was that Donald Trump refused to guarantee that he will accept the outcome of the election. Instead, he said he would “look at it at the time,” suggesting that he might challenge the result should he suspect significant interference in the vote. Hillary Clinton excitedly denounced Trump for “denigrating democracy” and with breaking with our long-standing tradition of a peaceful transfer of power.

Trump’s position is in keeping with recent comments made to supporters that the election might be “rigged,” a refrain that concerns some party officials and voters. His running mate Mike Pence and his daughter Ivanka have both agreed to accept the outcome of the vote; why not The Donald?

Trump is a very fast learner. The difference between his performance in the first head-to-head encounter with Hillary Clinton and the last was vast. Not only did he stay on message, but he clearly has amassed a great deal of information in a very short time.

Trump may be trying to gin up turn-out amongst his supporters. In the face of a barrage of negative publicity and weaker polling, Trump may fear that his backers will be discouraged, and fail to show up at the polls. The release of the new Project Veritas tape identifying actual voter fraud, and the firing of two Democratic operatives engaged in cheating, has given the issue of a rigged election actual substance. Trump has called for people to act as poll watchers, expressly to look out for signs of foul play. What could better whip up his followers than suspicions that the Clinton camp, and the DNC, is trying to fix the vote?

It’s not a crazy strategy. The entire country is alert to what has become the most aggressive media onslaught ever waged against a presidential candidate. The incessant reporting of unfavorable news about Trump, much-hyped revelations about his business dealings, the resolute reluctance to report WikiLeaks emails damaging to Hillary, the revelations about cozy relations between reporters and the Clinton camp – Trump can fairly claim that the media establishment is pitted against him.


Add to that recent reports of Democratic operatives inciting violence at Trump rallies – violence which became central to Hillary’s theme that Trump was “dangerous” and could not be trusted with the nuclear code – and there are reasons to be skeptical that the political playing field is level.

Much of the recent assault on Trump, such as the great attention paid to the video of his lewd remarks about women or the days of coverage given to his contretemps with the former beauty queen, has appeared geared to depressing turnout by Trump voters.

Hillary’s operatives are extremely concerned that her voters won’t show up because her unfavorables – like Trump’s – are so high. They have sent one emissary after another – including President and Mrs. Obama – out to goad African-Americans, Hispanics and other members of the Obama coalition into going to the polls. What’s even more effective? Making sure that Trump backers don’t show up either. So perhaps Trump is engaging in tit for tat.

Sadly, because of the media’s very real bias, Trumps’ comments will be portrayed as just more evidence of recklessness. Lost in the coverage will be mention of the Project Veritas recording or the firing of the Democrat apparatchiks. Pundits will be “dismayed” by Trump’s “whining” as President Obama described it.

Lost will be the other real news of debate: Trump is a very fast learner. The difference between his performance in the first head-to-head encounter with Hillary Clinton and the last was vast. Not only did he stay on message, but he clearly has amassed a great deal of information in a very short time. He spoke about Aleppo and ObamaCare, the economy and the Supreme Court with confidence. He will never match Hillary’s mastery of policy detail; he doesn’t need to. He just needs to sound competent, and he did.

Moreover, Hillary was not in command. She failed to answer a question about apparent pay to play while she was Secretary of State, instead ranting on about the virtues of the Clinton Foundation that was finally interrupted by Chris Wallace. No one was fooled. Republicans cheered; finally, a moderator brought up the unholy history of the Clinton Foundation.

Trump went after Hillary on the failures of policies towards Syria, Iraq and Libya. He again noted that she has been near the center of power for thirty years – time to have made some of the changes she has now promised to undertake. He again accused her and other Democrats of reaching out to blacks and Hispanics only every four years, when they need their votes. And, of course, he hit her over and over on trade, associating her with husband Bill’s “disastrous” NAFTA deal.

For her part, Hillary repeated worn lines denigrating Trump, accusing him of shipping jobs to Mexico and China by buying cheap imports for his projects (at least he created some jobs along the way), of belittling women, minorities and the disabled, of wanting to cut taxes for the wealthy, of suggesting we sunder our relations with staunch allies and of being in league with Putin.

Trump was more successful in deflecting such charges than in the past, partly because he is better informed. When Hillary was confronted with WikiLeaked comments about her dream of “open trade and open borders” she immediately revisited her meme about Putin and Trump being in cahoots. Trump noted drily “That was quite a pivot”, and indeed it was.

Will Trump’s better performance close Hillary’s lead in the polls? It may help.

Summing up, he said the country “cannot afford four more years of Obama.” That is the truth, and the most powerful message in Trump’s arsenal. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/10/20/calm-informed-reasonable-trump-scores-at-final-debate.html

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   seeder  XXJefferson51    8 years ago

Clinton was on auto pilot droning on about the same lies and talking points as the prior Two debates.  Trump was calmer and more in command of the facts in the third debate.  

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
link   Hal A. Lujah    8 years ago

I can't think of three worse words to describe Trump or his performance on any of the three debates than calm, informed, and reasonable.  

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
Professor Quiet
link   Dean Moriarty    8 years ago

Trump is at his best when he's not calm. The best part of all three debates was when Trump told Hillary if he was president she would be in jail. 

 
 
 
1ofmany
Sophomore Silent
link   1ofmany    8 years ago

These aren't really debates. It's an interview with no established scoring criteria, scored by people who may or may not have any knowledge of the subject matter. As a result, the determination of who won or lost is completely subjective and arbitrary.  What makes the whole thing ridiculous is that the scorer can score based on whether he or she personally agrees with the candidate's position rather than how the candidate defends it. 

In a regular debate, I would judge on organization and clarity, use of argument, use of cross-examination and rebuttal, and presentation style. In these interviews, there's not much to judge other than the clarity and presentation of the answer to a particular question. So on that basis, I would say that Hillary has a clearer answer and better presentation than Trump in all three interviews. To me, Trump just wings it with a presentation that's loosely organized and factually questionable. But, if you score based on whether you agree with the positions, then as long as the candidate can reasonably stand his ground, he wins. 

I still wouldn't vote for either one. Hillary falls far below what I look for in a candidate (in that she has absolutely no commitment to honesty and transparency in government) and Trump would be better suited as a ringmaster in a circus, 

 
 
 
ArkansasHermit
Freshman Silent
link   ArkansasHermit  replied to  1ofmany   8 years ago

These aren't really debates. It's an interview with no established scoring criteria, scored by people who may or may not have any knowledge of the subject matter. As a result, the determination of who won or lost is completely subjective and arbitrary.

 

True enough 1ofmany but I found Ezzra Klein's way of determining who impressed the American voters the most, (in all 3 debates), a useful way of judging their impact on the election.

 

Hillary Clinton’s 3 debate performances left the Trump campaign in ruins
Donald Trump didn't just destroy himself. Hillary Clinton destroyed him.

The polling tells the story. As Nate Silver notes , on the eve of the first presidential debate, Clinton led by 1.5 points. Before the second, she was up by 5.6 points. Before the third, she was winning by 7.1 points. And now, writing after the third debate — a debate in which Trump said he would keep the nation "in suspense" about whether there would be a peaceful transition of power, bragged about not apologizing to his wife, and called Clinton "such a nasty woman" — it’s clear that Trump did himself no favors. Early polls also suggest Clinton won.

debate.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course it didn't help Mr Trump in his debate performance to be so unprepared and ill-informed, in front of a world audience.

 

Trump Lied More Than Once A Minute During The Debates And He Still Lost

Donald Trump told a lie on average once every 50 seconds during the three presidential debates, and it didn't help him. Trump still got trounced by Hillary Clinton.

It’s no surprise that Donald Trump makes things up. He told at least 58 lies in the first presidential debate. He told even more whoppers in the second debate. And last night’s debate was no different.

In total, Trump has told at least 137 lies over the three presidential debates—and that’s excluding the countless falsehoods he spews daily on the campaign trail. That’s roughly one lie per every 50 seconds he spoke.

It turns out that flat out lying isn’t a substitute for having policies and knowledge about the issues that are facing the country.

 

 
 
 
1ofmany
Sophomore Silent
link   1ofmany  replied to  ArkansasHermit   8 years ago

All true AH but it takes much more than a good performance to get my vote. If Adolf Hitler were alive he could probably have wiped the floor with both of them (with no preparation at all) and I still wouldn't vote for him. 

As for lying, the media seems to be counting inaccurate statements. A lie is a statement that one makes knowing that it's false. Although all lies are inaccurate statements, all inaccurate statements aren't lies. I think Trump makes statements without regard as to whether his statements are true or false, like a drunk on a bar stool. To me, that's not lying. Hillary lies incessantly and has been doing it for 40 years. I don't want a liar for president or someone who makes statements not knowing or caring whether the statement is true or false. 

 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
link   96WS6  replied to  ArkansasHermit   8 years ago

Your analogy ignores everything that happened in the time between debates.  Like Trump made rude comments about women that totally drown out emails tying Clinton to pay to play schemes the media mysteriously didn't even cover.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  96WS6   8 years ago

The only good thing about this election is that neither one upon winning will have a mandate.  They will be weak and the country divided, hopefully to the extent that nothing can be done without broad bipartisan consensus.  With likely a president of one party, a gridlocked 51 member majority one way or the other and the house solidly controlled the the party opposite of the president, nothing passes without working together.  

 
 
 
1ofmany
Sophomore Silent
link   1ofmany  replied to  XXJefferson51   8 years ago

True. Hillary won't have a honeymoon period because she'll already be hated the minute she walks through the door. Even if republicans lose the senate, they'll be willing and able to tie her up in the house until they can get the senate back in the mid-terms. Trump wouldn't have faired much better. Both parties nominated the candidate that the other side hates the most and would have the least chance of governing successfully. Then the public can bleat for 4 years about how nothing gets done in the polarized government they elected. 

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
Professor Quiet
link   Dean Moriarty  replied to  1ofmany   8 years ago

You can't be serious Bernie is a full blown socialist that ran on a campaign of ballooning government spending and taxes. He had no chance of getting his socialist agenda passed. I hate Bernie's vision of what America should be far more than Hillary's. 

 
 
 
1ofmany
Sophomore Silent
link   1ofmany  replied to  Dean Moriarty   8 years ago

Dean--if that comment is directed at me, I'm factoring in negative poll ratings and not just policy. Bernie's policies would be dead on arrival but he, himself, wasn't hated. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  1ofmany   8 years ago

Pretty much one.  The GOP would have beaten Hillary if they'd have nominated anyone else.  

 
 

Who is online

Greg Jones
Ronin2


78 visitors