X
    Categories 2016DebatesDemocratic NewsRepublican News

Split Decision on Who Won the Debate

Going into last night’s debate, there was a lot of anticipation and anxiety, since Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are basically tied in the polls. Several sources have said that debates don’t decide elections, only ever moving the needle about three points. And even that usually dissipates by election day. However, in so close a race, solid debate performances in all three debates might make a difference.

ADVERTISEMENT

Immediately after the debate ended, Breitbart said their poll showed that Hillary may have “won” on performance, but does it really matter?

Democratic nominee for president Hillary Clinton edged her GOP rival Donald Trump in Monday’s presidential held at Hofstra University before a television audience estimated at 100 million viewers, according to a Breitbart/Gravis “flash poll” conducted minutes after the debate ended.

. . . respondents said Clinton performed better at the debate; 48 percent said Clinton did a better job, compared to 43 percent, who said Trump did the better job. “However, 95 percent of the people we contacted told us they were not going to change their vote based on the debate,” Caddell said. [Emphasis added]

Two percent of voters, previously undecided, switched to Trump after the debate. No undecideds went to Clinton. One percent switched from Trump to Clinton, and one percent switched from Clinton to Trump.

“Trump won on the most critical factor, on whether Clinton or Trump was more ‘plausible’ as president, 46 percent to her 42 percent,” he said. “That for him is really what this debate was really about”. . .Participants said they thought Clinton had a better grasp of the issues, by 48 percent to his 40 percent.

. . . ‘Who showed that they care about people like you?’ Trump won that 49 percent to 44 percent for her,” he said. In other questions, 49 percent said Trump was more honest and 42 percent said Clinton was more honest. Forty-eight percent of respondents said in the debate Trump showed he would be a strong leader, compared with 44 percent for Clinton. “With regards to expectations, 26 percent said Trump did better than they expected,” he said.

Meanwhile, Fox News say the pundits are wrong, and that the public thinks Trump “won” the debate.

The Drudge Report poll had 80 percent of respondents giving the victory to Trump, and a Time.com poll had the Republican nominee leading Clinton by 4 percentage points – 52 percent to 48 percent – after more than 1,300,000 votes were cast. CNBC and Breitbart polls also had Trump winning the event, at New York’s Hofstra University.

A Fox News online poll had Trump winning with 50 percent of respondents, Clinton at 35 percent and the other 15 percent declaring no one won.

Experts say the online polls are a good gauge of enthusiasm, which could mean Trump’s performance was enough to energize those who already backed him.

Trump’s best moment, according to Stuart Tarlow, of American Thinker, came when he distinguished himself from Clinton based on their disparate backgrounds. Trump characterized his opponent as a “typical politician,” who knows how to make statements and promises that sound good, but who never actually gets things done, Tarlow wrote.

The Daily Caller quotes FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver as predicting that Hillary will gain from the debate.

Statistician Nate Silver expects Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton to rise in the polls after the first presidential debate, according to an op-ed published Tuesday.

“Democrats woke up on Monday to a spate of bad polls for Hillary Clinton, which brought Donald Trump to perhaps his closest position yet in the Electoral College,” Silver said.

“They had reason to go to bed feeling a lot better. Clinton bested Trump in the first presidential debate according to a variety of metrics, and the odds are that she’ll gain in head-to-head polls over Trump in the coming days.”

Time Magazine is inviting you to vote about the debate.

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton met for their first presidential debate Monday, and we want to know who you think won.

Take a moment to click the link below next to the candidate who you thought did the best at the debate at Hofstra University in New York.

So far, the Time online poll shows Trump the winner, 55 to 45 percent.

Fortune Magazine also has an online poll for you.

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump faced off Monday night in the first of three debates they will hold before Election Day. Now that one of the most anticipated, and likely one of the most widely watched, debates in modern American political history is over, we want to know what you think.

Take our poll below and let us know who you think won, who performed better on the economy and national security, and whether the debate changed your mind.

So far, the Fortune online poll shows Trump the winner, 52 to 48 percent.

Both the Time and Fortune polls are still ongoing so the results could change over time.

Goethe Behr :Goethe Behr is a Contributing Editor and Moderator at Election Central. He started out posting during the 2008 election, became more active during 2012, and very active in 2016. He has been a political junkie since the 1950s and enjoys adding a historical perspective.

View Comments (78)

  • WHAT DEBATE WERE YOU WATCHING? TRUMP WAS TROUNCED...FULL STOP. NO WAY ANYONE COULD CONSIDER HIS FLOUNDERING, GAUZY, LACK OF FOCUS CONTENTIONS WITHOUT FACTUAL EVIDENCE TO BE NOTHING OTHER THAN THE TRUMP WE HAVE COME TO KNOW. THE SCHOOL YARD BULLY THAT IS BETTER WITH HIS FISTS THAN HIS BRAINS. NOT FIT TO BE PRESIDENT.

    • I assume your comment was directed at me. What we do here is report what is being said. We didn't give our opinion, we just quoted others. Then, it's up to you to comment.

      • But you didn't include CNN's and ABC's polls that showed Clinton as clearly winning while you referenced Fox's poll that clearly leans conservative. Clinton was hands down the clear winner in overall polls. If we wait a few days we'll see that on fivethirtyeight.com that reflects all of the polling.

      • I had no intention for you to take this personally. It is the general tenor of this publication and those who have responded to which I am really objecting. I stated my opinion. Did not mean to "shout" in caps. As to your question about whether anyone is going to vote, I am. I have no delusions that Clinton is perfect...far from it. Do I think she can handle herself on the political stage better than Trump? Absolutely yes.

        • I didn't take offense. I was just pointing out that, in most cases, we don't give our opinion, we just present what's being said out there.

          We try to provide a fairly balanced presentation. One time, we'll share things that favor Trump, other times, things that favor Hillary.

          Actually, you're referring to my note at the bottom. I wasn't asking if people were going to vote, but rather, if anyone was going to vote "FOR" a candidate, instead of against the other.

  • It really does not matter to me who won the blasted so-called "debate." Clinton supporters claim she did and Trump supporters claim the same for him. As for me, last night's "debate" only reinforced my intended vote AGAINST "Madame" Clinton and her program of hypocrisy, despair, deceit and corruption. For those who agree fine; for those who disagree, fine as well.

  • At best this debate was a toss up. For all her political experience, Clinton was barely able to hold her own against a political NEOPHYTE. I was really surprised by the point in your article that said 2% of undecided voters were swayed by Trump.

    As we all know this election will be decided by those who are undecided voters. Clinton zealots will vote for her, no matter what. Likewise Trump zealots will vote for him, no matter what. The undecided voters hold the power if the two candidates are virtually tied presently.

    That Trump swayed undecided voters is YUGE!!!

  • The debate was a landslide for Clinton, no doubt. Trump started off OK, but fell apart after about 10 mins resorting to his usual insults, lies and conspiracy theory. He got completely owned by Hilary after the opening 10 minutes. Facts trump Trump every time. And he was woefully unprepared and lacking any eloquence at all. He is not president material, never will be.

    • The problem is that Americans have a short attention span. Many people tuned in, saw the part when Trump was strong, and then shut it off.

      • Yet 2? of the undecided voters swayed to Trump. I am happy to see him up on stage. Hopefully we get a better Moderator that sticks to their rules! Hillary should not be in office. I as a Trump supporter would rather have Jill then Hill!!

          • Tu quoque fallacy, I'm afraid, but thanks for playing anyway. And if you can't even spell "you're" correctly, then you are ill-equipped to comment in the first place. You are the one who aligned yourself with the blatantly and obviously racist, xenophobic and misogynist Trump, not I.

          • Speak English. :) just kidding. I usually respond to this app via cellphone so whatever, I made an honest mistake. I rarely will get into a fit about grammar, punctuation, or spelling mistakes. Ask Goethe. :) I apologized several times for it in the past. I also don't criticize others for simple mistakes. Did the meaning get across? That is the most important question.
            Now you sir seem to be quite accepting of cultures. Some will not have the same knowledge of the English language like you. Will you be so quick to condemn them also? Or is it only because my views are different from yours? I am a Trump Supporter. Does that give you the right to behave in a deplorable manner?
            I just sent you links right above your comment. Did you watch them? I took my time to put out a proper response to your mean spirited comment and you made a stink about a word. Shameful really.

          • I watched your links and laughed quite heartily at them. YouTube videos, especially from such obviously biased sources, just as full of unfounded conspiracy theory as your own ridiculous claims, do not equate to reasonable evidence of your claims. But then facts and scientific method are generally denigrated by Republicans, so that is entirely unsurprising to find here. As soon as you have reasonable evidence for your extraordinary claims, then we will be reasonable and appraise them. Further conspiracy theorist nonsense is entirely insufficient and will be summarily dismissed forthwith.

          • My claims? You accused me of supporting a racist, xenophobe, and misogynist. Then you went a step further that I may also be one.
            I told you that you deflect & insult. Well I guess this is what Hillary ment about you "basement dwellers". Again this is coming from her!!!! Great leadership. Oh my goodness.... That is where you get your anger from!
            I wish you well. Just be sure the one that the media and celebs tell you to vote for is truly worthy for your vote. She has flipped on so many issues it is very fluid. How can you be so sure? When it was first discovered that using press and talk shows would improve your image the Democrats played right into it. Wag the dog.

          • What do you expect people to think of you when you openly support a xenophobic, racist, misogynist who routinely mocks women, the disabled, Mexicans, etc and is entirely unconstitutional in his attempted disintegration of our first amendment rights by removing the freedom of religion? Why would anyone who has basic humanity align themselves with such a monstrosity? Any allegations levelled at Clinton are nothing compared to the daily diatribe of demented hatred spewing from Trump's mouth. So, if you align yourself with such bigoted, unconstitutional views then we can only assume that you are of the same hateful inclination. I see no possible justification for alignment with such an obvious hate monger and detrimental influence to American values of basic freedoms for ALL.

          • You need to be a little more specific. Great buzz words.
            Would you believe that the media can twist a message to portray the elitists agenda?
            This last debate, Hillary brought up a female that Trump allegedly called piggy. It wasn't about policy but of character. Right? Here is the truth that will get buried.
            https://youtu.be/rwVxJFF6afA

            It is the same with many other examples. We can debate or talk about each one if you like.

          • You don't appear to have realized yet that YouTube videos are not evidence. Simply more anecdotal biased hearsay. No evidence again. Ugh. Waste of time trying to debate with you when you lack even rudimentary reasoning ability. Reasonable evidence is required.

          • The video was irrelevant. Trump didn't make any of the charges in the video. And you 'll notice that when he played the scene of the debate, he carefully edited it, so that the offensive terms were removed.

            The issue at hand was how Trump views women--which shouldn't matter if you're not a woman, I suppose. And it's not a major issue to most Americans. But you don't refute a charge by running off in all sorts of other directions.

          • Well, maybe it's about time the English language gets restored to its - yes, that's "its", not "it's" - full dignity. Too - yes, that's "too", not "to" - many people have butchered it on the Internet, and it's shameful.

          • The Queen will be proud of you, but let's not pick at each other over superficial minutiae.

            While improper English reflects poorly on a person, and makes one question the rest of his or her knowledge, let's try to focus on ideas here.

  • If you were to judge the debate in the traditional sense, I think it is clear Hillary had more well thought out positions. I also think this election cycle has been anything but traditional. Personally I need more substance from Trump than what he has provided.

      • I am sorry, but that is not substance. Personally I think Trump intentionally takes a Tabula Rasa approach to policy, letting supporters project their own beliefs onto him. Hillary certainly has her faults, but I can at least respect that she takes a rational and serious approach to the presidential race.

        • Well, I can definitely say that we have no idea what Trump will do. Not comforting. If he does get elected we would have to hope that he will surround himself with people who have some wisdom. And hope that he will actually listen. However, we know what Hillary has done and I think that "faults" is the understatement of the year. Her rational approach is pandering and lying…ahh I see you said serious approach, got it. I know that Trump lies too, but Hillary's are magnitudes greater and about more serious issues.

      • Lol. He got slaughtered in the debate. The moderator even let him off with his consistent interruptions of his opponent during her time. He got off incredibly lightly. He won't be so fortunate next time. And he better come prepared this time. His responses were woefully inept, in eloquent and unresearched. As well as purporting multiple lies along the way. Still no tax returns. Still no explanation regarding his birther conspiracy theory and abject lies regarding his Iraq acceptance. Truly remarkable deceit, very easy to fact check.

        • I agree that Trump is not a seasoned debater and also agree that he came off as "un-researched" and "inept" and he may have "got off incredibly lightly." Indeed, Holt did give Trump some opportunities to go after Clinton and Trump missed plenty of opportunities, but Holt was clearly in the bag for Clinton.

          For example, he fact checked Trump and interrupted him far more often. This point is clear. To be sure, Holt could have fact checked her when she claimed to take cyber-security threats seriously. I'm sure as a journalist, Holt can recall when FBI Director Comey pointed out her ineptness and her dishonesty during his Congressional Hearing, but Holt failed to call her on it. Additionally, He asked no questions about the email scandal, Benghazi, nor the allegations against the Clinton Foundation.

          The whole debate seemed framed in a way that would not be damaging to Clinton. As far as I am concerned, Holt loses some major credibility as an honest journalist because of this.

          • I can't say I agree that it was in the bag for Clinton. The email scandal and Benghazi have already been heavily reviewed by professionals with a lot more information than the average citizen. I think questions on those topics would just be pandering to those that want to perpetuate the "scandal". Sadly, many who want to discuss these topics, don't seem to care about the Trump foundation, Trump University, etc.. Topics which haven't been explored to the same depth. Standards applied to only side do a disservice to us all.

          • I guess we watched a different debate. Don't know what to tell you. Regarding Trump vs. Hillary Scandals, that's why I mentioned the fact that all of these scandals happened while Clinton was a government official. Trump has not been a government official. It is a false equivalency to compare Trump U, Trump foundation to Hillary's scandals.

            I am not defending Trump's situation, but there is no comparison. Clinton has demonstrated that she and her aides were "extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information." (James Comey-FBI Director). Read James Comey's statement and then compare it to similar cases. It is ridiculous. She is a danger to national security. The Clinton Foundation has every indication that they are participating in a pay for play scheme going on. Her State Department ignored repeated calls for increased security in Benghazi and they were denied and she also fumbled on the response when were being attacked. People died. Her decision's in the Middle East led to massive instability. More people dead. And I do know that Bush invaded Iraq, trust me not a fan of the man. So where's Trump's dead bodies and his demonstrated endangerment of national security? There are plenty of news articles that cover all of this. I will provide you the statutes that she violated and links below. Read them yourself. They could have brought a case. Comey simply chose not to. They protect their own when they want to. Pure and simple. I am under no illusions that any of what I have said or provide will sway you, but here you go.

            18 USC 1924- https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924

            18 USC 798- https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924

            18 USC 2071- https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071

            Other cases of people convicted for similar offenses:

            http://www.wnd.com/2016/07/justice-department-prosecuted-4-cases-like-hillarys/

          • All good points for sure. However, imo he was acting as debate moderator, rather than investigative journalist. And in that regard, he let off Trump for far too many transgressions of the rules. Clinton didn't do what Trump did. She waited and smiled. Trump just lied, denied and interrupted. Very disrespectful imo and should have been moderated for it.

          • Yes, a moderator should keep the debate civil and focused and Holt did allow both candidates to transgress and Trump did so more often. Holt could have taken charge more often, you're right. But, he didn't always act as just a moderator keeping the peace, he clearly interrupted Trump several times to press him on the veracity of his responses, while not doing the same to Clinton.

            The part where he loses credibility again is how he framed the entire debate with his line of questioning. For example, he brings up the "Birther" issue when the Server and Benghazi scandal is one of the biggest news stories in a decade and is a huge question about Clinton's honesty and fitness to be an effective Executive and Commander in Chief.

            In Comey's official statement about the Server Scandal, after deciding not to recommend, "To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now."

            As far as I know, this kind of candidate, with so many questions about suitability and her demonstrated lack of judgment while serving in a government position, is unprecedented in our electoral history. Holt crafted the questions. He knows how relevant these issues are. We all do. But, it seems like it was a purposeful omission. He blew it.

          • I expected Holt to ask about "Basket of Deplorables," and her health. But, ironically, Trump was the one who was sick at the debate. If I had been Hillary, I would have been tempted to ask, "are you all right? Do you need a tissue?"

          • Lol, the sniffles. That guy always sounds like he's got a cold.

            See that's what I mean, Holt didn't ask about her health, that's only been a huge story in the news lately and something people are concerned about in their possible future President. I know he can't cover everything, but I wonder about Holt's choices. Seems like he's protective.

          • I wouldn't say Trump is a "seasoned debater," he's just forceful. He interrupted Hillary 51 times and interrupted Holt a number of times, too. It was amateur of him, but that's his sales pitch--that he's not a politician.

          • He is clearly an amateur. I do agree that his lack of political experience is his "sales pitch" and a good point made by you.

  • When you consider Hillary was wrong on the TPP and she did say it was the gold standard video proves that. She was wrong on crime being down as the 2015 FBI reported it was up 11%. She was also wrong on stop and frisk being unconstitutional it is not and is being used today in many states. I could go on and on with all the lies and things she was wrong on, To bad that the facts were only checked on Trump at the time but when all is said and done, Trump won by a long shot!

    • Trump was right that Hillary said that the TPP "would be" the "gold standard," but that was before it was put together. She was not referring to the final product.

      However, he was wrong about crime--in New York. Trump said that murders were up in NYC. That was his stated point. She disagreed, and she was right. Murders in Chicago, Baltimore, and other cities were up, not NYC:

      "Murder is down 32 percent since 2011, the last year of the old stop-and-frisk era, having dropped to 352 homicides in 2015 from 515 in 2011."

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/09/28/trumps-false-claim-that-stop-and-frisk-was-not-ruled-unconstitutional/

      Regarding stop-and-frisk, there's this:
      The same article notes that, "In 2013, U.S. District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin issued a 195-page ruling in favor of the plaintiffs." The plaintiffs claimed that their constitutional rights had been violated, and the judge agreed. I'm not sure if you could say that determined that the law, itself, was unconstitutional.

      • Regarding Murder rates in 2015, The Wall Street Journal writes, "But while crime in the city continued its historic downward trend, led largely by a drop in burglaries and stolen vehicles, three of the most serious crimes rose in 2015: homicides were up 5.1%, rapes 6.3% and robberies 2.1%. Also, crime increased in two of the city’s five boroughs: Manhattan and the Bronx." The WSJ's source is the NYPD.

        Yes, if you count from 2011, there was a drop, but the graph clearly shows that murder and rape is up by 5.1% and 6.3% respectively from 2014. So, according to the NYPD, Trump was right.

        • Irrelevant. They were debating the efficacy of stop & frisk. Why would you compare two years neither of which was affected by stop & frisk, in order to examine the efficacy of stop & frisk? Even Trump would probably understand that makes no sense.

          • I agree. My not a point about the efficacy of "stop and frisk." I was responding to the Goethe's comment about murders not being up in NYC, that is not true. Murders are clearly up as they are in several major cities. This phenomenon has been linked to more lax policing in the wake of Ferguson, the so-called "Ferguson Effect." I'm sure you've heard the term. Lax policing may, in fact, attribute to higher crime rates, do you disagree?

          • Yes, I disagree that "lax policing" would lead to more murders. I think other factors would be much more influential. People tend to murder for other reasons than "the police wasn't around". It's much more complex than that.

            The "Ferguson Effect" is yet another attempt to shift the topic of conversation away from institutional bias and incompetence in the police force. This kind of analysis ends with the conclusion that we should accept that the police keeps killing unarmed black men, since any kind of criticism of their behavior will lead to higher crime rates.

            I don't buy that. It's nothing but transparent scapegoating of the worst kind.

          • Sir, you should really do more research on the subject. You would need to prove that bias against black males leads to action like them getting shot. There are studies that show that show that they cannot prove a link from bias to an action. You can be biased and not act on it. You can have desires and not act on them.

            This is not a shift away from the topic, I am not trying to "accept" that the police shoot unarmed black men. BTW unarmed doesn't mean not dangerous. The fact of the matter is that black males between 15-40 are statistically more involved in crime and they are more likely to resist arrest. If you want to talk about the factors that lead to this, I am all for it. However, nobody makes anyone commit crime (don't blame poverty, the majority of people that grow up poor don't commit violent crimes, is there more crime in poor areas, yes, but that's a correlation not a cause) and nobody makes a suspect resist arrest and fight against cops. Are there bad shootings? Absolutely, and I want to see those prosecuted just like everyone else that is concerned about justice does, however the majority of these shootings that BLM has been protesting about were, unfortunately, justified.

          • Ever heard of something called inference? Ever heard of making conclusions based on observation? Ever heard of the scientific method?

            I'm asking because you display some sort of hyper-skepticism of epic proportions.

            The fact is that unarmed black men keep getting killed by the police. This needs to end regardless of the underlying causes. We know that bias exists, and we know that racism exists. These are plausible explanations for the outcome. It literally doesn't matter if you "can have a bias and not act on it". In these instances we're talking about, people did act. It's not an unknown variable.

            Unknown doesn't mean not dangerous, you're right. However, unarmed means that a trained police officer should not need to empty a magazine into the person's chest and head. I must assume you're trolling with this kind of comment. Do you think it's defensible to murder random children on the street because "child doesn't mean not dangerous"?

            Since crime rates rise in areas of poverty all over the world, in every society, in every time, we can safely assume that the two are closely linked. There's no need to commit special pleading just to justify your racism.

            You say that "the police go to where the crime is". This is demonstrably false. We know that black people are much more likely than whites to be arrested for the same crime, other variables being equal. This means that the police go to where they expect to find crime. Congratulations, you have stumbled upon an example of bias leading to action.

            Tell me again how it's justified to kill a child for playing with a toy gun. Tell me again how it's justified to stalk and murder a boy for taking a stroll through his own neighborhood. Tell me again how it's justified to kill a man for picking up a toy gun in a store where toy guns are sold. Tell me again how it's justified to murder a calm and cooperating man in his car, with his shocked girlfriend sitting next to him as he slowly slips away.

            Better yet, go fuck yourself, you racist piece of human garbage.

          • I deleted the obscene insult at the end of your message.

            I did not delete the whole message--this time.

            You're coming close to being blocked from the site.

          • Your first exchange with me on this website was you defending a commenter who lied about 4 year olds being forced to undergo sex reassignment surgery, and then adding some lies of your own to the cocktail.

            You'll have to forgive me if I don't recognize your moral superiority here.

          • Blaming unarmed black children for being murdered - totally fine.

            Insulting a racist - blocked from site.

            Again, good to know what your priorities are. Do what you want, buddy. A website that condones racism isn't worth much in the end, is it?

          • One must be skeptical, that is the scientific method and the burden of prosecution. Did I say that killing a child playing with a toy gun was justified? You don't know anything about these cases. Do some reading kiddo and leave the thinking to the adults. But go ahead and name call child. That's what children do when they don't know any better.

          • You clearly don't know about the cases. I know…I'm racist and so are all of the police and all white people for that matter. Furthermore, you didn't follow my advice to read through your comment with a skeptical eye. I'm shocked. You must be too busy exorcising that white guilt that is clouding your judgment. I'm assuming you're white, don't get triggered. If you're not, don't worry white guilt is like the patriarchy, something that can be internalized, so you could still have it.

          • Yep and you're slipping into the leftist ad hominem instead of actually using facts. Don't get triggered. BTW, liberals and other lefties also mock SJW's and use that word. Nice try. Back to the kiddie table.

          • Wow, you got me with grammar. BTW, the comma goes inside the quote. See, I debunked your whole argument.

          • No, it doesn't. That would imply that the comma is part of the quote. In this case, it was not.

            You're talking about old US specific style guides. See how things can get weird when you have no idea what you're talking about?

          • He's right. The comma and period ALWAYS to inside quotation marks.

            Question marks and exclamation points can go inside or out, depending on whether the question or exclamation is part of the quote.

            But you are right, that it would be "kids' table," not "kid's table."

          • Did you find any example of 4 year olds undergoing sex reassignment surgery yet, by the way? Remember when you made that weird claim?

          • You are talking about old US specific style guides, like I already pointed out in the other comment. He is not right, and neither are you. You are very rarely right about anything.

          • Well, typically in the U.S. it is the case and I have never seen it done otherwise. It does look awkward. But, again this is a debatable point and you totally got me on all the other stuff because…grammar.

          • I got you on all the other stuff because you rely on special pleading in order to blame black Americans for societal circumstances that are observed in all cultures, all societies, everywhere. You also claim that it's okay for the police to murder unarmed men because "they might be dangerous". I strongly disagree. What more can be said? You're pro-murder, I'm anti-murder. Agree to disagree.

          • No, I'm not blaming. I'm just following what the stats say. See, you are the one that cannot deal with the facts. You have to blame things like poverty and racism. Black people are human beings and they have a will and make choices just like everyone else. You are condescending and dehumanize them. Well done. You're not helping.

            Also, notice how you are calling it murder. It sounds like you are assuming if a cop shoots and unarmed man it is automatically murder. Do you see how that doesn't follow? If a suspect is unarmed, but reaches into his waste a cop might assume that the person has a gun and has a right to defend themselves. If they shoot that suspect, it is called self-defense if the officer (notice the if) is acting reasonably under the circumstances.

            Sometimes these shootings are not justified. They are human and they make mistakes and some of them are assholes that shouldn't be cops. I will certainly agree to that. However, you have to see it from the perspective of the officer as well. If you were a cop and were all pumped up on adrenaline and someone made a move that you thought might be threatening I would love to see how you would react. You are ready to call them murderers, I am saying let's be skeptical and wait for evidence before we make a judgment like that. And then you say I am pro-murder. Back to the kids' table. I can't fix your kind of foolish. You'll just have to use less emotion when you are thinking through these kinds of uncomfortable things. Good luck.

          • Your argument is predicated on the idea that black Americans should be displaying different behavior than all others when confronted with poverty and racism. That's why it's special pleading. And that's why you're a racist piece of garbage.

          • Man, you really are a special case. There you go again blaming other factors for people's behavior. I don't blame poverty and racism for anyone's criminal behavior. So I don't treat black people different, you do because you cannot deal with it emotionally. BTW, there are more poor white people in the U.S. by the way and white people's crime is generally on par with what one would expect or under for our population representation. Go look at NYC violent crime rates by races and remember proportion. Here's a link: http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/analysis_and_planning/year_end_2015_enforcement_report.pdf

            Read the DOJ stats on crime. Keep in mind that black males that are in the 15-40yrs. (which is the demo that commits the most crime in all races, males between those ages) old demographic are about 3-6% of the population of the U.S. and are committing about 52% of the total murders in the U.S. They are also commiting violent crime and robbery way out of proportion (keep that proportion thing in mind) to their population.

            BTW, I bet you could find that crime in impoverished white areas is also high, but that still doesn't mean it is the cause. Poverty is correlated with higher crime, it is not the cause. There are other factors that are plaguing the black community as well that need to be addressed. Have you looked at the stats on fatherless homes in the black community compared with other races? It is disproportional, so is welfare consumption, which also contributes to fatherless homes. (BTW white fatherlessness is an issue too, just not at the same rate.) Fatherless homes are yet another correlation with crime and poverty. Not a necessarily a cause though. But, if you don't have a father you are far more likely to end up in jail and be living in poverty.

            And why isn't it a cause? Because people are the cause of crime. People. We're not robots. We all have choices. You keep making excuses for people because you are not willing to face the fact that people make bad decisions and there are consequences. Grow up.

  • None of the sources, except Time (but not it's unscientific poll) means anything. They are all right wing propaganda rags. Yes, I include Fortune. Every alt-right troll spent all night hitting those polls. The one poll tRump did not praise was CNN. That was the only poll that means anything because it was the only scientific poll.

    • You do know that CNN is propagandistic too, right? You haven't noticed that they selectively edit their news coverage to fit their narrative? There's plenty of evidence out there. They clearly favor Hillary Clinton and are left wing, not as far left as MSNBC, but CNN is left-wing. Does that make them better than the "right-wing propaganda rags" as far as overall credibility is concerned?

      As far as the CNN/ORC poll is concerned, the political affiliations of the respondents were not equal. There were 15% more that identified as Democrats than Republicans. Do you think that may have affected the outcome of the poll? That doesn't mean that Trump would have come out on top in the poll if all things had been equal, however, the numbers would probably have been different.

      Here is some of their introductory quote:

      "Interviews with 521 registered voters who watched the
      presidential debate conducted by telephone (landline and cell)
      by ORC International . . . 26% of the respondents who participated in tonight's survey
      identified themselves as Republicans, 41% identified themselves as Democrats, and 33% identified themselves as Independents."

      And notice how CNN, in their story, softens this discrepancy:

      "Although the survey suggested debate watchers were more apt to describe themselves as Democrats than the overall pool of voters, even independents who watched deemed Clinton the winner, 54% vs. 33% who thought Trump did the best job in the debate."

      Just so you know, I think that Hillary looked better in the debate too and came out slightly ahead. Not based upon the substance of her claims or arguments, but rather based upon her appearance. She is more poised, experienced, and articulate. While, on the other hand, Trump began to flounder around searching for answers, missed many opportunities to criticize her credibility, and is not very articulate. I wish we were all better able to dissect bad arguments and were better educated on the issues, so those things would matter more in "debates," but we are not. I include myself too.

      Heres a link to their own pdf with a breakdown of the entire poll.

      http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/09/27/poll.pdf

      Cnn's story:

      http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/27/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-debate-poll/

    • You do know that CNN is propagandistic too, right? You haven't noticed them selectively editing their news coverage to fit their narratives? They are left wing, do you think that makes them better? By the way, there is a demographic breakdown for the CNN/ORC Poll below. I will also provide a link to their entire poll breakdown. And I got it from CNN (so you will actually believe it). In their statements, they indicate that almost twice as many respondents identified as Democrats. Do you think that may have affected their poll results?

      Just so you know, I think that Hillary ended up coming out slightly ahead in the debate. Not on the substance of her points, but in her appearance. This is an important point. I think that people respond to appearances more than substance sometimes in these matters and are not very good at dissecting bad arguments and knowing facts (think Kennedy vs. Nixon televised debate. Radio listener thought he won, while TV viewers thought JFK did). For example, she looked more poised, experienced, and is far more articulate. While, on the other hand, Trump started floundering a bit at the end and is not a very articulate man as we have seen throughout the campaign.

      Here's their introductory statement:

      "Interviews with 521 registered voters who watched the
      presidential debate conducted by telephone (landline and cell)
      by ORC International on September 26, 2016. The margin of
      sampling error for results based on the total sample is plus or
      minus 4.5 percentage points.
      Survey respondents were first interviewed as part of a random
      national sample conducted September 23-25, 2016. In those
      interviews, respondents indicated they planned to watch
      tonight's debate and were willing to be re-interviewed after
      the debate.
      26% of the respondents who participated in tonight's survey
      identified themselves as Republicans, 41% identified
      themselves as Democrats, and 33% identified themselves as
      Independents."

      Here's the link: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/09/27/poll.pdf

  • You'd have to be pretty far gone in order not to recognize that Trump was way, way, way, way, way out of his depth in the debate. We all knew this would happen, and it happened just as expected. The man isn't qualified to take a guided tour of the White House. It's time to end this charade, and luckily polls show those Trump supporters who still have a speck of integrity and intelligence left in them are coming back to the real world, at long last.

Comments are closed.