That's not really true.  It's just a vote she didn't earn.  

 

Also, there are clearly some places you can vote for whomever the hell you want and it won't make a difference.  Every Republican in California can vote for the corpse of Ronald Reagan and it won't change the election one bit.  

 

I would say the states where your vote really matters, one way or the other, number about a dozen.  So if you're not in one of those states, vote for whomever you want.  In fact, I'd encourage a third party vote.  Let's get some different voices.

C-SPAN; yes, I believe I will.

 

http://mashable.com/2016/09/26/you-should-watch-the-clinton-trump-debate-on-this-channel/

Well so much for fireworks (edit: actually didn't take long for them to get into it), but the fake flattery is one part hilarious, though another part awkward. 

Edited September 27, 201610 yr by PseudoSABR

Can we have less talk about emails and tax returns please?

Can we have less talk about emails and tax returns please?

How about playing Global Thermonuclear War?

Tweet of the night:

 

The only winner tonight is the Voyager probe, which is speeding away from the Earth at 17 kilometers/second #debatenight 

 

Dr. Maddie Stone.

Well this debate seals the deal with people who have a quest for knowledge, intelligence, and people who have a reliance on the concept of sanity.

 

It's a good thing, but I have no faith in our population as a whole. We'll see what happens.

Pretty much as expected. Trump did a little better than i thought he would, but that isn't saying much. Clinton really looked solid. Not sure what the polls will say tomorrow, but pretty tough for trump to gain ground imo. I wouldn't be surprised if Clinton takes a chunk of the Gary Johnson vote now.

I thought Clinton looked good.  She was composed, sharp, and knew her stuff which made Trump look worse by contrast.  She basically did exactly what she needed to.

 

I thought Clinton looked good.  She was composed, sharp, and knew her stuff which made Trump look worse by contrast.  She basically did exactly what she needed to.

Yup. This is the difference between the candidates ... one who actually prepares, studies, knows what she's talking about whether or not you agree with her, and the other who just 'wings it.' I don't know how anyone can choose the latter to be put in charge of anything. Ever. Especially along with all the hate rhetoric he spews.

There are many segments of the population that won't be effected by the debate. Those that want to "send Washington a message" will still vote for Trump. A lot of people that would never vote for Clinton aren't in play either. Finally "the deplorables" are still in the Trump camp. Trump gets a boost also for being on the same stage and not coming off as a total idiot.

 

Anyone who wondered who was more qualified, or if Hillary was really not well should be more prone to vote for Mrs. Clinton. A week ago I was confident that America was smarter than the Brits. I am not so sure right now.

 

I haven't read anything above. But that was the most ridiculous thing I have seen on live television in a long time. Unraveled incompetence . . . .

 

I guy as well vote for the dingbat "doctor" who is running for the Green Party as well...even though she is an anti vaxxer and all sorts of other insane things.

I'm with Brock, give me a shady smart person over a downright delusional idiot any day of the week. The Klobs vs Itstimetotakeit question if you will

 

Uh, Jill Stein is not an anti-vaxxer. 

Anyway, again, the undecided people not polling for any of the four candidates are the key here, and those people are either mainly concerned with basic security interests in terms of efficiency of waging war or with their own personal bottom line of economic stability and growth, or both. They traditionally, pre-2008, ended voting Republican. That has all changed now. Make of that what you will.

 

I haven't read anything above. But that was the most ridiculous thing I have seen on live television in a long time. Unraveled incompetence . . . .

Well ... this could explain it ...

 

http://jezebel.com/howard-dean-just-accused-donald-trump-of-being-on-cocai-1787117523?utm_campaign=socialflow_gizmodo_facebook&utm_source=gizmodo_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

Well ... this could explain it ...

 

http://jezebel.com/howard-dean-just-accused-donald-trump-of-being-on-cocai-1787117523?utm_campaign=socialflow_gizmodo_facebook&utm_source=gizmodo_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

He'd probably be more lucid that way.

Uh, Jill Stein is not an anti-vaxxer.

Yeah she is, or she is pretty damn close to being one.

 

IMO Stein is a dingbat, just like Johnson.

 

The Green Party and lib party really shot themselves in the foot by putting up such poor candidates. They had a chance to actually get in the conversation for once and they blew it!

Hillary picked apart Trump last night from the opening round. I scored it 118-108.

One thing I've learned by watching/following online last night, is don't tweet. Anything. Ever. No matter what you may say, someone will go to incredible lengths to find a tweet you sent 5 years ago saying something different. 

One thing I've learned by watching/following online last night, is don't tweet. Anything. Ever. No matter what you may say, someone will go to incredible lengths to find a tweet you sent 5 years ago saying something different.

 

Not something I lose sleep over.

 

Hillary picked apart Trump last night from the opening round. I scored it 118-108.

 

You should clarify for non-boxing fans that this kind of score is a real beating.

 

You should clarify for non-boxing fans that this kind of score is a real beating.

I think you just did

Trump won that debate IMO. He plays the insider / outsider angle so well. Every time Clinton repeated some rehearsed talking point, which was often, Clinton just looked like more of a politician. That level of preparation and methodical, wordy speech just doesn't appeal to people these days, I suspect. Will be curious to see if the polls change in a few days.

Grandstanding, being factually wrong and constantly interrupting someone appeals to people?

How does one go about scoring a debate? Yes, this is a serious question. 

What's all this then; facts?

 

http://www.npr.org/2016/09/26/495115346/fact-check-first-presidential-debate?platform=hootsuite

Watching the debate now. Trump started strong but started becoming unraveled within 15 minutes. He's yelling and interrupting everyone else. I don't think that plays with many people who aren't already in Trump's camp.

The low point for Trump was and continues to be the fact that he won't release his tax returns. Part of his whole schtick is wearing the corporate mongol identity with pride. The fact that he wants to hide whatever is (or isn't) in his tax history suggests it must be huuuge.

If Trump looking foolish last night isn't enough to keep him out of Washington I think we're going to look back and realize there wasn't anything that could be done, too many people wanted a "non-politician" even if it's a horrible person who can't speak in coherent sentences, lies with every breath and makes terrible decisions daily.

 

I'm still extremely confident he won't win and even optimistic that he's going to get annihilated. Still, pending how our country is doing in the next four years, the Democratic party might be wise to actually start grooming a non-traditional, non-political candidate if for nothing else than to combat any growing national dissent against the current political system.

 

It would be awful to start having celebrity puppets as presidents, but I guess I'd rather it be someone like Jon Stewart.

 

How does one go about scoring a debate? Yes, this is a serious question.

Polls.