The Next President of the United States

[Marky147]

Should have gotten Bruce Buffer in to call them out

[Rexas]

MEXICO!
CHINA!
MEXICO MEXICO MEXICO america MEXICO CHINA!

[Marky147]

Could be a long night for The Donald.

She definitely knows how to push his buttons

'He got $14m from his father, and did well'

'I TURNED A SMALL LOAN INTO A COMPANY WORTH MANY BILLIONS!'

[The Camel]

Rooting for people to lose their houses is "good business" apparently.

Surely the sort of people who were losing their houses are the sort of people who would vote for the Big Orange Monster?

[Marky147]

Guess they're not going to keep things above belt for the debates

[Rexas]

Does anyone feel like she could wreck him by just standing back and saying "how"?

[Marky147]

What's the line for him saying 'I've built a tremendous company, an amazing business'  over the 3 debates?

Has to be at least 20 times...

[MintTrav]

Expecting support for Trump on Fox, but Megyn Kelly & the others are giving a win to Clinton.

[TightEnd]

that was an incredible watch. my word, Trump was terrible (in tactics)

here's one verdict

Smug Hillary Clinton wins the first presidential debate, Trump looks like a plonker.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/09/smug-hillary-clinton-wins-debate-donald-trump-looks-like-plonker/

[DaveShoelace]

Yeah Clinton won, she stayed on point, clearly very well prepared, had plenty of facts, had some pretty good comebacks/zingers and finished really strong.

Trump was all over the place, bizarre at time, very unprepared. He actually missed a few sitters too - never mentioned Hillary's donations from dodgy countries and had a few chances to do that, didn't trash her for her poor handling of classified information when the hacking question came up (he did it earlier but this was a real chance to do it again).

The one area where I think Trump did better was in the opening answers to questions before they started going back and forth. Trump did a better job of expressing average American grievances whereas Hillary had more platitudes. But Trump is a populist so that's what he would do.

It wasn't a home run for Hillary, but a thinking neutral would have been persuaded. She still isn't as charismatic as previous presidents, she just isn't Trump.

The question is, how much do these debates influence the final outcome? Trump in big trouble if they do because surely Hillary will be better prepared again for the next two?

[MintTrav]

That was horrible. It's never enjoyable to watch someone being outclassed, even if they 'deserve' it. That was a thrashing - an eight-year-old trying to argue with a professor; an inexperienced boxer against the world champion. He started by constantly interrupting and shouting over her answers (and over the moderator), which looked terrible, and yet that was his best segment.

From then on, he was taken apart. But, while she was several levels better, he made it easy for her by missing the opportunities he had. Many of his answers just didn't make sense. He made unrelated points in successive sentences. Meanwhile, she sliced him to bits. By the end, he was so like that boxer, making wild swings while being beaten to a pulp.  

If I was an undecided voter, I would be thinking that this is the guy who has been telling us what a great negotiator he would be against Saudi Arabia, China, etc, but he can't remember to bring up his bargaining points. There were no questions on immigration or the wall but, as they have been the core of his campaign, he should have brought them in, and there were opportunities to do so. There was very little about her potentially exposed areas like Benghazi, Syria, the email server and no mention at all of the Clinton Foundation. Even Breitbart says that he failed to take his opportunities. I don't agree with much that his supporters believe in, but he let them down by being under-prepared for the biggest event of his life.

The main memory I have is of her laughing a few times at his terrible attempts, before taking him apart yet again. That might be a problem, if the image that sticks in people's heads is her being smug and over-confident.

[DaveShoelace]

You know your stuff on US elections Mint, historically how decisive have these debates been over the years?

[MintTrav]

Much less than we like to think.

There is usually some movement in the polls afterwards, but it often reverses in about a week. They are usually in roughly the same position after the debates as they were beforehand. There is a graph somewhere illustrating this - I'll see if I can find it. From memory, I think the main one that didn't reverse was Reagan-Carter, as the final debate was less than a week before the election. Haven't checked that, but I think it was the case.

If they do have an effect, it is generally the first one that matters. I guess the impression is set in people's heads, and they then just see whatever reinforces that in the later ones. The Nixon-Kennedy debates are usually quoted. I haven't watched them, other than snippets, but it is agreed by all that Kennedy won the first and Nixon either won the other three or else the last one was a draw, but he won over the series. Yet, the first one is the one that stuck, party because the audience was much lower for the others. The exception is Obama-Romney, where Obama was decisively trounced in the first, but turned it around in the two later meetings.

I haven't seen the audience figures for last night, but they were expecting to break records. I wouldn't be surprised if the numbers are lower for the others, so the damage may be done.

[DaveShoelace]

Much less than we like to think.

There is usually some movement in the polls afterwards, but it often reverses in about a week. They are usually in roughly the same position after the debates as they were beforehand. There is a graph somewhere illustrating this - I'll see if I can find it. From memory, I think the main one that didn't reverse was Reagan-Carter, as the final debate was less than a week before the election. Haven't checked that, but I think it was the case.

If they do have an effect, it is generally the first one that matters. I guess the impression is set in people's heads, and they then just see whatever reinforces that in the later ones. The Nixon-Kennedy debates are usually quoted. I haven't watched them, other than snippets, but it is agreed by all that Kennedy won the first and Nixon either won the other three or else the last one was a draw, but he won over the series. Yet, the first one is the one that stuck, party because the audience was much lower for the others. The exception is Obama-Romney, where Obama was decisively trounced in the first, but turned it around in the two later meetings.

I haven't seen the audience figures for last night, but they were expecting to break records. I wouldn't be surprised if the numbers are lower for the others, so the damage may be done.

Pretty much what I thought it would be like. Most Trump supporters wont have changed their mind and vice versa.

TBH I think, barring a 'black swan event', you could do the election tomorrow and get the same result as November.

[MintTrav]

The debates have no effect:



The only election where voting intentions have been significantly different after the debates was in 76, when Ford did that crazy 'no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe' thing.