How Trump won over a bar full of undecideds and Democrats

http://nypost.com/2016/09/26/the-best-de...e-the-bar/

Quote:

YOUNGSTOWN, Pa. — Ken Reed sat down at the main bar of the Tin Lizzy tavern with two things in mind: to dig into the tavern’s oversize cheese steak, and watch the presidential debate.

“I am hungry and undecided, in that order,” he said, digging into the savory dish in a bar that dates back to 1746.

Kady Letoksy, a paralegal by day, a waitress and bartender at night at the Tin Lizzy, sat beside him. At 28, she has never voted before, and she is now thinking it might be a good idea to start.

Letosky entered the evening undecided in a town that is heavily Democratic in registration. Her sister and father are on opposite sides of the political aisle. Donald “Trump had the upper hand this evening,” she said, citing his command of the back-and-forth between him and Hillary Clinton.

Reed, 35, is a registered Democrat and small businessman. “By the end of the debate, Clinton never said a thing to persuade me that she had anything to offer me or my family or my community,” he said, sitting at the same bar that has boasted local icons as regulars, such as the late Fred Rogers, and Arnold Palmer, who had his own stash of PM Whiskey hidden behind newer bottles of whiskey for his regular visits.

“Have to say Trump had the edge this evening, he came out swinging but also talked about specifics on jobs and the economy,” Reed said.



The presidential debate plays on the television at the Tin Lizzy.Photo: Justin Merriman

Reed said Clinton came across as either smug or as though she was reading her résumé, adding there was nothing on her résumé that touched on his life. “I am a small businessman, a farmer, come from a long line of farmers and coal miners. The policies she talked about tonight ultimately either hurt me or ignore me,” he said.

How apropos for this presidential election that these patrons chose the Tin Lizzy — a 270-year-old tavern in this small Westmoreland County town — as the place to watch the historic debate between Clinton and Trump.

The tavern’s namesake is the Model T, the first affordable automobile available to America’s working class, which eventually became slang for something quite different.

If someone said you were “going the way of the Tin Lizzy,” it meant your job or industry was in decline, no longer useful.

That is how today’s cosmopolitan and political classes view Main Street voters — as people whose values, traditions, skills, jobs and lives are being replaced by something new.

“I’ve been a Democrat all of my life, but when Clinton mentions her husband and the jobs he brought to the country in the ’90s, it’s not a fair assessment. She is no moderate Democrat the way he was, her policies would not bring back jobs,” said Nathan Nemick.

It burns Nemick when Clinton references her husband, like she did in the debate on trade and jobs. “She is nothing like him,” he said of the Democrat he admired in his youth.

Pennsylvania is a high-stakes state for both candidates, but particularly Clinton, and Westmoreland is a high-stakes county, particularly for Trump.

She needs to win this state, and he needs not just to win this county but to do so by 2,000 more votes than Mitt Romney did in 2012.

Westmoreland is one of about 10 formerly or traditionally Democrat-blue counties across the state where Trump must drive up a higher-than-normal turnout, or even flip them to Republican red, in order to offset an anticipated high turnout for Clinton in Philadelphia.

The other counties are Cambria, Greene, Fayette and Washington in the southwest corner of the state and Bucks, Lackawanna, Lancaster, Luzerne and York in the east.



Kady Letosky, 28, of Latrobe, Pa., watches the presidential debate at the Tin Lizzy, a 270-year-old tavern in Youngstown, Pa., on Monday, Sept. 26, 2016.Photo: Justin Merrimen

Between 1960 and 2000, Westmoreland County Democrats handily won presidential races with one exception: Ronald Reagan’s 1980 victory.

By 1984, voters here were back to their Democratic allegiances, giving their votes to Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis and Bill Clinton.

When Al Gore turned the party toward its progressive wing in 2000, however, he left behind Westmoreland County Democrats.

Democrats here are more traditional in their values — they are pro-gun, pro-life, pro-coal, something today’s Democratic Party has left no room for.

Trump probably connects better with such voters than did Romney in 2012, or John McCain in 2008; a large part of the reason is his outside-the-box style. Yet for him to win the state, such voters need to turn out in force — here and elsewhere — to offset Philly’s overwhelming numbers.

Before the debate, the latest CNN poll showed a virtual tie in the Keystone State.

Outside the bar, a lone sign lit up the quiet corner of the old Lincoln Highway: “RIP Mr. Palmer, Forever in our hearts,” honoring Arnold Palmer, who died Sunday.

“He was just a regular guy, just a working-class guy at heart like everyone else around here,” said Jim Sciabica, the unofficial bar manager and small businessman who kept “Mr. Palmer’s” PM Whiskey tucked in a corner away from patrons and workers.

(09-27-2016 07:59 AM)chakalaka Wrote:  Trump will win. But he must keep fighting. This will not be handed to him. He must appeal to the moderates/center I believe. But I could be wrong.

Precisely.


That section of the population is the most significant in any election. And...he knows that .


Let's go back a little bit. During the Republican elections, he could afford to play an "asshole game", because he knew all along that, if he wins, that the vast majority of Republicans will stand with him . Yes, there are exceptions like Mittens, but...as we say, they bark, but do not bite.


After he eventually won the Republican nomination, he started to act more, like Ivanka and Melania said, presidential. He realized in time that the battle conditions have changed, and that he needs to play a completely different game.


Republican voters are not his primary target anymore. Right now, they are Berniebros/Blue Collar Democrats and independents. And the only way to get them to your side is to point that Hillary is corrupt as fuck, and not be too aggressive. Yesterday, he was aggressive, but not too much (good thing), but sadly, he didn't push the email/corruption issue too hard (bad thing).


He did OK overall (according to polls), but he could, and must play better next time. And I am quite sure that he will.

(09-27-2016 08:27 AM)Gmac Wrote:  How Trump won over a bar full of undecideds and Democrats

^ This is why his performance will be a net positive. He isn't Hitler. He's just a regular guy like everyone else. He didn't need to be a policy wonk. He didn't need to hammer her. He just had to be a reasonable, well tempered guy. A few flaws may even be helpful.

Well, watching the U.S. Presidential election debate sure made for an interesting morning. In my view the debate ended in a draw.

Where Trump did well:
- kept a high-energy stance;
- smashed Hillary in economic matters and presented himself as someone who can offer real solutions;
- was subtly, but continuously mentioning people and places he'd visited (a man of the people), which unsurprisingly are nearly all located in states important to his campaign: Ohio, Illinois, Michigan etc.

Where Trump failed:
- didn't go deeper on some crucial points (Democrat/Saudi connections, e-mails, Bill's sexual adventures, Libya etc.);
- too often walked into Hillary's frame and was a bit defensive;
- his facial expressions were too stiff and serious. A smile every now and then won't kill anyone;
- unlike Hillary, he never mentioned his family.

Where Hillary did well
- for a drug-dependent old hag, she seemed pretty fresh and vigorous (actually, this one goes to her medical staff);
- subtly mentioned her father and her humble working-class family history several times.

Where Hillary failed
- more or less, she recycled empty phrases during the entire debate - absolutely nothing of substance;
- despite all her efforts, she couldn't have possibly painted a nicer image of herself. She remains an elitist puppet, it can be clearly seen by everyone, and I doubt she gained any new voters last evening.

All in all I'm not too worried as this is just the first debate, and if Trump's team of advisors does a good job in the coming days, we should see a much better performance in the next one. Remember, Hillary can't possibly perform any better than this. She doesn't have anything to improve on, Trump does.

(09-27-2016 07:26 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

(09-27-2016 06:15 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  Can't you just disable this forum for users with sub 250 posts in the software?

It just seems like a deliberate trap (perhaps that's the idea though) to say "you can't use this" but then to dangle it in their face fully accessible to them.

I think it's fair to say that such functionality isn't built into the forum or any of the available modules.

Nah, it's pretty straightforward.

1) This forum looks like MyBB version 1.6, if so:
2) Create a new user group. In admin: Users & Groups -> Groups -> Add New User Group.
3) Give this new group a name, like "Full Users"; select Copy Permissions From...: "Registered". Then add it.
4) Go to: Forums and Posts -> Politics & War -> Permissions
5) Remove "Post Replies", "Post Threads" and "Post Polls" from the Registered user group (the default user group).
6) Go to: Users & Groups -> Group Promotions -> Add New Promotion
7) In "Promotion Requirements", click "Post count"; In Post Count: choose "greater than" and 250; In Original User Group: "Registered"; In New User Group: "Full Users". Then add it.
8) You're done. However, promotions run on a timer, so for a brief period all the "Registered" members (basically everyone) can't access Politics & War (20 minutes tops).

No need to yell at people to "stay out!" and try to keep up with punishments when they don't, when you can literally "build a wall"

Guys, that NYP article was just the NYP covering for Trump, the same way the 95% of the MSM covers for Hillary.

This debate was a lost opportunity for Trump, he did not fare very well. Landed some good punches in the first half hour then faded in the stretch. He could have smashed her, because he has so much material to work with.

His main tactical shortcoming was his inability to pivot and turn softball topics the moderator was lobbing to Hillary into scorching short big picture attacks, instead of getting mired into rambling defenses.

Examples:

-Stop and frisk: "the problem is not stop and frisk, this is only a trivial aspect of a much bigger problem: the lack of economic opportunity in the inner cities. We're spending trillions on useless wars abroad, wars that my opponent has pushed hard for, we need to change that. I want to bring our investment back into building our nation instead of throwing trillions of dollars into nation-building missions that are poorly planned by politicians like her, and I want to create jobs in the inner cities instead of exporting them through NAFTA and the TPP, horrible deals that my opponent has pushed through!"

-Cybersecurity: this one is more obvious. Hillary complete lack of institutional control, putting secrecy above security and rules.

-Taxes: Slam the IRS and get on the side of the taxpayer and small business owners, who are one of the nation's economic engines, "I create jobs, I'm a builder", contrast with the fact that she's a crooked career politician her lack of transparency, 33000 emails, Goldman Sacks speech.

-Iraq war: "You can cherry-pick my position as a citizen and guest, but it's quite clear that my position was mixed at best, I was actually against it while she is on record for it, VOTED for it, and instigated other wars like Libya which were all-round disasters. We've wasted trillions on foreign wars that created terror instead of using our resources to rebuild our inner cities, our national infrastructure and our industrial base. She stands for trillion dollar wars, NAFTA and the TPP, while I want to rebuild America."

Quote: Me and MMX2010 had a humorous conversation with these two girls afterward. Maybe he can do a better job filling in the poetics than I can.

What I remember most about the conversation is that we both went very strong Scott Adams, but in completely different ways.

My best moments were:

(1) In response to the accusation that Mr. Trump lies a lot. "Okay, so there's two types of people. One type is constantly making very big promises, to the point where you don't think he can deliver 100% on them. And he probably thinks too highly of himself. The other has a very realistic sense of who he is, and never over promises anything. What do you call a person with a very realistic self-assessment who never over-promises anything?"

"Who are you equating to what?"

"I'm not. I'm just asking you what you call someone with a correct sense of who he is, who never over-promises."

"An honest person."

"No. A depressed person. Multiple studies have shown that depressed people have the most realistic outlooks. But that realism makes them depressed, and they depress others with their lack of enthusiasm." (I had a wonderful analogy to marriage proposals, but didn't want to play it.) (They both absorbed what I said, but reluctantly.)

(2) My excellent, effective one-liner: "A man with no plan who absolutely loves you, is much better than a woman with a great plan who fucking hates you." Followed by, "I look at this from a strictly psychological perspective, and I know that Mr. Trump will not accomplish 20% of what he promises, but the oversell and the fact that he loves me, makes it totally fine."

(3) The second girl, immigrant from a South American country, explaining how offended she was about Mr. Trump's comments against Mexicans, "That didn't just offend Mexicans. It offended people from Honduras, Columbia, and a host of other South American countries!"

I replied, "Don't look behind you. No, don't look! Don't look or you'll ruin it. There's a nine feet tall, dark red in skin color, humanoid figure with horns and a pitchfork standing behind you. Do you believe me? Are you going to check and make sure he's not standing behind you? (Both say no.) Good, but do you know who I'm referring to. (They didn't.) The Devil. The literal devil. You don't believe in him, but there's a large number of people who do believe in the Devil, and would look behind them. But do you know how many Americans believe that all Mexicans are rapists? Zero. Zero. That would mean the newborn Mexicans, you know. Hell, I could say, 'Did you know that when a Mexican girl is born, she grabs a broomstick and violently rapes her own mother with it? Mexican hospitals keep a special broomstick nearby, solely for this purpose. Do you believe me?' (No, but why say things like that?) So that you'll get angry, and when you all get angry, we realize how important that issue is; and we talk about it."

(4) My one-liner, "The only thing I want is for immigrants to love America. If you love America, you'll look after it. But if you don't, you won't. If you don't feel anything towards America, but don't hate it, then you won't look after it either." (Why would we hate America?) "Because you might have been raised to do so. Your childhood education is important."

I closed with, "If there is a conflict of values between your home country and America, I expect you to vote in favor of America. Every single time. And I also want you to accept that moving to America is an admission that your home country sucked in some very serious ways. Fuck, if I moved to the Philippines, or Russia, or Columbia, I promise you that I'll tell everyone it's because the USA sucked in some very important ways."

-----

Libertas' best moments were (1) explaining that the majority of what Trump said and promised were exaggerations, but those exaggerations allowed him to be the most memorable, which put him in position to win. That's called "domination of emotional space". (2) Telling one girl who found the Mexican judge comment offensive that, "You're thinking in words. When you call something like that Racist, your thinking skills stop working. Would you have been offended if he was a German judge, in a case where being German was important, and he said that being German would cause the judge to treat Mr. Trump unfairly?" (They both made the funniest faces here, like their brains knew he was right, but they couldn't accept it.) One says, "That's totally different." Libertas calmly, perfectly calmly, doubled and tripled down, "Objectively speaking, those two comments are the exact same. The exact same."

-----

Overall, they were both expecting a lot of crazy stuff they could disagree with. But they got a lot of well-measured, calm, psychologically well-expressed and intelligent political positions.

One girl asked how we knew each other. Libertas said, "Secret society of shit lords." I added, "He isn't lying. We're a part of a small but devoted group of people who seek to demoralize our political enemies. When I'm talking to you, I'm calm-rational, but on Twitter... If you think this is the line of unacceptable behavior, on Twitter, I cross that regularly."

In my opinion, Clinton won the first debate. 55% - 45%

Trump could not hold the frame. Hillary is a very experienced politician.
I hope Trump will analyze his mistakes and won the other debates.

Hillary was hammering him on his own finances, zero federal tax payments, etc. and he never once turned the tables on her, asking her to explain her pay-for-play and Clinton Foundation scams. Also, I would have liked more insinuations that her botching of her own cyber security (on purpose, IMO) and dishonesty and secretiveness on the issue instantly disqualifies her from holding any office more important than the one she already failed at. Donald put on the baby gloves to not seem mean and it played into Hillary's frame.

Hillary seemed surprisingly coherent, alert, and present. I need the name of her doctor. She has to be on a bigger drug cocktail than Hitler or JFK.

(09-27-2016 08:30 AM)Rush87 Wrote:  

(09-27-2016 08:27 AM)Gmac Wrote:  How Trump won over a bar full of undecideds and Democrats

^ This is why his performance will be a net positive. He isn't Hitler. He's just a regular guy like everyone else. He didn't need to be a policy wonk. He didn't need to hammer her. He just had to be a reasonable, well tempered guy. A few flaws may even be helpful.

100%

That article posted by @Gmac was refreshing. I guess we are too hard on Trump and it is hard for us to view this stuff as a "regular joe". These folks likely view Trump as the fired up rookie who was starting his first game.

I am happy that regular folks could smell the crap HRC was putting out with her smug ass attitude. She acted no better then the mean bitch in HS that only is popular because she is fucking the QB (Bill Clinton).

HRC looked more like the spoiled brat up there. Remember when she was talking about her father? She sounded like a moron who never saw her father work a day in her life. Or the lame attempts to humanize herself talking about her grandkid. She is so cold and empty that she has no ability to keep it real. Trump was much more warm and authentic vs Hillary the robot.

With the Stop and Frisk shit you could see Trump bow up when these trolls like Holt and HRC try to talk about NYC. That is HIS CITY and you could see him get annoyed that they were trying to talk like they knew.

Sorry ass Clinton who was a Senate for NYC had to backtrack on the stance as she knew Trump was right and then tried to spin it into how crime has been decreasing regardless when it was the fact that violent crime and murders dropped significantly with Stop and Frisk that was the main point.

The "debate," if you can call it that, was a mild win for Hillary, but it was completely rigged in her favor. Most smart people can tell:

- The questions were absurd (Trump name calling women fat pigs? Really? AT A PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE? ROSIE O'DONNELL had to be brought up to defend himself?).
- Lester Holt was a total shill but Trump cannot attack him because he's Black.
- Hillary knew every question beforehand and had been practicing her script perfectly for tonight.
- Hillary had more time to speak than Trump.
- The audience kept interrupting Trump and Lester Holt never stopped them.
- Trump's microphone being positioned too low, and at the same time extremely sensitively, and also cutting out randomly sometimes. His explanation on the birther issue could not be heard in full because right when Trump said someone's name in Hillary's campaign it cut out.
- Hillary always being asked the question first so she could set the frame with her scripted answers.
- The camera on TV only showed their faces so the height difference is ignored.

So the how the fuck does anyone win in such David vs. Goliath situations? You can't. It's a joke. Trump should demand the next debates be held without a "moderator," like they did it back in Lincoln's day.

The thing is, many stupid low-info voters won't pick up on the rigging, and instead see Trump on defense getting bullied. For men like us, it looks terrible. But he has our votes, so it doesn't matter. For the undecided skittish women, they will either feel sympathy or feel Trump is incompetent for the job. So overall the grab for these women voters will be a wash.

Trump needed to pull down the 4th wall behind this debate in order to win it. He would have needed to call out Lester Holt, and he needed to call out Hillary for completely ignoring the problems facing her campaign. For example, when Trump said he would release his tax returns prematurely if Hillary released her 33K deleted emails, Hillary immediately used her next chance to talk to launch into yet another scripted speech and plow past Trump's attacks while making up tons of lies about Trump. Trump needed to remind the viewer that Hillary had no answer after this happened. And this happened many times on many different subjects.

Unfortunately the 2nd and 3rd debates won't have as many viewers, and most low-info voters will just make up their minds in their own irrational way after this event. I view this debate as a missed opportunity for Trump, and so did the Republicans I watched it with (mostly older male voters in NH). These guys weren't very intelligent, and they were like "Trump stayed on defense! Come on! She was more prepared." I corrected them, "She was entirely scripted."

At the same time, given the inherent unfairness of the debate, I still give Trump the win for having to fight through all the bullshit. But merely having the moral victory isn't enough, he needs to close the deal and win the election. He needed to pull down the 4th wall and expose The Beast. But he didn't, and lost a lot of voters as a result.

His demeanor and game was shaky and nervous in the first 30 minutes, but he calmed down going into the second half. It didn't matter though, because the first part was the most important issue - economics. So when he needed his best game, he choked. Even Trump was feeling the extreme pressure at this event.

If Trump loses this election, this debate will have been the reason why. Can he "pull it together" for the second and third? I'm not sure it matters. The viewership won't be as high, and low-info voters will be less likely to tune in. The second and third debates are mostly for show. In the Republican primaries, Trump had a strong first debate, which is why it didn't matter when he bombed the later debates.

I suppose when the world is crumbling around us, we can recall the best chance we had to save civilization was during a completely staged event that our candidate could not overcome. I just hope the average pinhead voter feels enough rage at the system to sympathize with Trump and vote for him anyways despite the bad "performance," and sees through the inherent unfairness of the system.

We need to pray that Trump came off as more likeable than Hillary, which is quite possible given how much of a smug cunt she was last night. Even if he cannot win through argumentation he can still win via personableness. We won't find out the answer to this question until Nov. 8th.

(09-27-2016 09:31 AM)kosko Wrote:  

(09-27-2016 08:30 AM)Rush87 Wrote:  

(09-27-2016 08:27 AM)Gmac Wrote:  How Trump won over a bar full of undecideds and Democrats

^ This is why his performance will be a net positive. He isn't Hitler. He's just a regular guy like everyone else. He didn't need to be a policy wonk. He didn't need to hammer her. He just had to be a reasonable, well tempered guy. A few flaws may even be helpful.

100%

That article posted by @Gmac was refreshing. I guess we are too hard on Trump and it is hard for us to view this stuff as a "regular joe". These folks likely view Trump as the fired up rookie who was starting his first game.

I am happy that regular folks could smell the crap HRC was putting out with her smug ass attitude. She acted no better then the mean bitch in HS that only is popular because she is fucking the QB (Bill Clinton).

HRC looked more like the spoiled brat up there. Remember when she was talking about her father? She sounded like a moron who never saw her father work a day in her life. Or the lame attempts to humanize herself talking about her grandkid. She is so cold and empty that she has no ability to keep it real. Trump was much more warm and authentic vs Hillary the robot.

With the Stop and Frisk shit you could see Trump bow up when these trolls like Holt and HRC try to talk about NYC. That is HIS CITY and you could see him get annoyed that they were trying to talk like they knew.

Sorry ass Clinton who was a Senate for NYC had to backtrack on the stance as she knew Trump was right and then tried to spin it into how crime has been decreasing regardless when it was the fact that violent crime and murders dropped significantly with Stop and Frisk that was the main point.

Well said.

I hope Stop and Frisk never comes up again though. It's dumb and "Gun-Free NYC" is not the rest of America. A national style of this violates states rights and privacy rights on unreasonable searches and seizures. That Charlotte guy even though he got himself killed, would be alive if those officers were minding their own business.

Anyway, Trump seems to be getting alot of positive reviews around the web. The fact checkers are coming down on Hillary for all those lies she told last night. She may have hurt her image worse than we thought was possible. We are used to her lying about everything, but it looks like she has told one too many.

Also those terrible questions, the interruptions, and lack of hard questions to Hillary is getting alot of run right now. Lots are howling about how rigged it appeared last night, and it's not just Republicans saying that.

Trump Won hashtag is still trending on Twitter as well.

Howard Dean's dumbass is the only disgraceful comment so far. He insinuated that Trump is a coke user because of his sniffing. Even if that were possibly true, that was extremely low class, but Dusty did call it last night. Someone was going to say something about it. I did not expect Mr. YEAARGH to put his foot in his mouth, but I am not surprised he did it. He is to this day the only presidential candidate that yelled like a retard and lost because of it.

Worth listening to how the leftists viewed it:




Basically I think it's right for Trump to avoid seeming like he's "on the attack". Unfortunately women have the right to vote, and when they see a woman rightly being grilled for her immoral and even criminal behaviour, it just triggers a "rally to her defense" instinct. We all already know this, with the "pussy pass" and "hamstering".

Women are traditionally near-universally barred from judgeships and positions of power because they don't have the same clear-headed capacity for an objective moral compass as men to. They'll readily fuck over both themselves and everyone around them "because feelings" to the extent they have the power. I'm sure Trump is knowingly holding back because of this.

The best tactic will be, especially in the last debate, making it clear that Hillary is no friend of women, bringing up her husbands treatment of women and her support of it etc. There are countless brainless women who outright say they're voting for her simply because she's a woman. If she's seen as a traitorous woman they might just spend that afternoon on Instagram or at Starbucks, instead of in a voting booth.

I see BrewDog finally got banned, predicted this last week because of the weird aggressive shit posting all over the place.

Fuck Lester Holt.

Anytime someone mentions tyt, I think of this





It's pretty close to how their actual shows go.

(09-27-2016 09:53 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  Worth listening to how the leftists viewed it:




Basically I think it's right for Trump to avoid seeming like he's "on the attack". Unfortunately women have the right to vote, and when they see a woman rightly being grilled for her immoral and even criminal behaviour, it just triggers a "rally to her defense" instinct. We all already know this, with the "pussy pass" and "hamstering".

Women are traditionally near-universally barred from judgeships and positions of power because they don't have the same clear-headed capacity for an objective moral compass as men to. They'll readily fuck over both themselves and everyone around them "because feelings" to the extent they have the power. I'm sure Trump is knowingly holding back because of this.

The best tactic will be, especially in the last debate, making it clear that Hillary is no friend of women, bringing up her husbands treatment of women and her support of it etc. There are countless brainless women who outright say they're voting for her simply because she's a woman. If she's seen as a traitorous woman they might just spend that afternoon on Instagram or at Starbucks, instead of in a voting booth.

Trump has been talking about Hillary's failures almost every day for months now. Not attacking was calculated. He didn't just 'forget'. I think this was tailored exactly for the audience he intended. This isn't his natural personality, so it isn't his best performance, but it's the performance he needed at this time.

(09-27-2016 09:53 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  Worth listening to how the leftists viewed it:




Basically I think it's right for Trump to avoid seeming like he's "on the attack". Unfortunately women have the right to vote, and when they see a woman rightly being grilled for her immoral and even criminal behaviour, it just triggers a "rally to her defense" instinct. We all already know this, with the "pussy pass" and "hamstering".

Women are traditionally near-universally barred from judgeships and positions of power because they don't have the same clear-headed capacity for an objective moral compass as men to. They'll readily fuck over both themselves and everyone around them "because feelings" to the extent they have the power. I'm sure Trump is knowingly holding back because of this.

The best tactic will be, especially in the last debate, making it clear that Hillary is no friend of women, bringing up her husbands treatment of women and her support of it etc. There are countless brainless women who outright say they're voting for her simply because she's a woman. If she's seen as a traitorous woman they might just spend that afternoon on Instagram or at Starbucks, instead of in a voting booth.

I think that is a bad strategy. I know it sucks and it is not fair, but he cannot sink down to her level on that. When she started attacking him about women at the end, I think it was not received very well. Most know Trump was on TV and had that epic feud with Rosie O Donnell a very long time ago. He isn't like that now. Many others hate Rosie as well, including lots of women. People change. Trump has changed. That 400lb hacker joke was a tinge risky too, but most people think hackers and IT people look like that, or just like to blame the IT guy, so that's not that bad. No IT guy gets offended on that. It's like plumber and crack jokes.

Him discussing her bedroom and household business is low class and is ultimately nobody's business in a public sense. Look how quickly others forced he and Pence to walk back the Gennifer Flowers stuff. Privately chopping her and Bill up is one thing, publicly is another.

In Political Science mud throwing is very risky business. Many Political Scientists adhere to the axiom that the first to throw mud usually loses (either that battle or at the end). Personal attacks are also the worst mud a person can throw. She, in an attempt to guilt manipulate women with an emotional appeal like that, may backfire on it's own.

One of the things I keep seeing on MSM this morning is how the voters really liked how Trump stuck to the issues and explained his plans more than Hillary. Voters do like attention to detail. Expect Hillary to try to do a much better job on that or hamster spin. It's going to be one or the other.

Also, if it isn't broken (Trump's debate strategy), don't fix it. If the detailed plan talk on the issues won the voters over. Double down on THAT. That is why the feedback this morning is important after a debate, as well as polling data (which needs more time). He does not need to waste cycles on something that did not hurt him any to begin with.

Guys, if debate performance decided elections, Ted Cruz or Krispy Kreme would be our nominee.

George W Bush was a disaster in the 2000 and 2004 debates.

Obama had his ass handed to him by Romney in that first debate.

If you want to see some pathetic debate performances, watch Reagan in 1984. Then he won 49 states.

We don't choose presidents on who "won" the debates. Debates are useful though for allaying fears of independents when there is a big change candidate ( which mr Trump is big league).

The press made the bar so low for Mr Trump he passed it easily. He was not "literally Hitler" or unhinged, and he often had some reasonable things to say.

Hillary won on debate points, but Mr Trump won over voters.

?!

Reagan was money in the 1984 debate.

(09-27-2016 10:19 AM)eradicator Wrote:  ?!

Reagan was money in the 1984 debate.

I think that was the second debate, and he had to address the age issue because his first debate performance was so bad.

I watched this last night with a mostly Conservative group. Some women there, and a couple skeptical people.

The first third of the debate went slightly to Hillary. Trump, like a pro boxer, took the lay of the land. He knew the fight was rigged, and was likely trying to make sure of just what it all was that he was going to have to overcome.

Hillary only needed to follow her script. She was easy, cruising through her memorized lines that she had been studying all week. She knew her 'zingers', even though they were terrible, would get laughs from the paid audience. Her delivery of these proved the set up 100%.

The second third was interesting. Things went slightly off script for her. Holt was needed to keep landing punches on Trump. Without Holt, Hillary was likely to not recover. Trump found himself defending absolute bullshit attacks. But he came through looking more relaxed into the third round.

He stayed mostly out of the race baiting bullshit questions too. Hillary has probably never known any black people in her life, and you could tell Trump was just letting her dig her own grave on this topic. The bullshit was oozing out of her at this point, and people who know nothing about her could even smell it. What her face was showing, and what her words were saying, were completely at odds.

Sure, the night could have gone better. But today is new day and all Hillary's bullshit lies are being exposed today. Trump won the internet of course, and probably a lot more regular folks than we might think. The working class has a hell of a lot more street smarts and a better bullshit detector than Hillary will ever know.

Everyone was expecting a bloodbath, but Trump is up against a veteran with almost the whole US government machine behind her. Hoping for a miracle TKO is one thing, but actually expecting it is another.

Thought I'd offer my two cents.

The big thing we need to remember, first of all, is that Trump is a guy with zero experience in elected office and in holding political debates. He's been a businessman his whole life. And here he is, up against the most "establishment," protected candidate in history. Clinton has been in Washington power circles for 30+ years.

Trump is the darkest of the dark-horse candidates in US history. You'd have to go back to the 1830s or 1840s to find anything comparable (James K. Polk, maybe?). So he's up against very tough odds here.

Add to this the fact that the press is biased against him, the moderator was biased against him, and the audience was too.

Simply to be able to hold his own on stage is a big achievement, if we look at this objectively.

For a first debate, he at least avoided getting destroyed, which at this point in the race is all he really needed to do. There is still is plenty of time to sharpen his message and hammer home the key points.

What I think he needs to do in the coming debates is focus relentlessly on the following:

1. Remind people that they are worse off now than ever before. If Trump is going to pull this off, he has to show himself to be an agent of change against the corrupt US establishment. He's got to focus on the economy. He's got to remind people how Clinton's policies for the past 20 years has brought us the worst economy since the 1930s.

2. Emphasize her support of catastrophic wars in the Middle East, her support of big business and the banks, her pandering to special interests, and her unrelenting opportunism.

He's got to go with his strengths: that he's an underdog running against a corrupt system. This strategy has the merit of being true, also.

People forget that we are in the midst of an economic collapse that by many measures is worse than the depression of the 1930s. The incumbents can't be allowed to escape blame for this. He's got to make them accountable to the public.

.

Did anyone else get nervous when they asked the question on Nuclear policy and went to Trump first? He did a solid job dodging that one.

I found it odd how they only went to him first with that and when asking him to explain parts of his past.

And when the race issues came up Trump needed to remind the viewers that Hillary was trained by Robert Byrd, a grandmaster KKK dragon.

I think we underestimate just how unlikeable Clinton is. All of us here might be able to appreciate Clinton's ability to memorize lines, which was indeed impressive, however there's more than that and Hillary simply comes off as a know it all, goody two shoes, teacher's pet. She laughs sarcastically at Trump, she smirks, she is condescending. Undecided voters, low information voters, many will think she is smug and talking down to them, doesn't matter what she says, it is the tone, the kind of condescending tone used to denigrate these people for most of their lives. Not smart enough, not educated enough they've been told, that's the tone they've been told that in. Trump speaks at a 4th grade level in debates, yes it's true, identification is big here. I think the end results might be that some low income blue democrats see Hillary less positive and Trump more positive after the debate.