I think it's kids wanting to be edgy and anti-establishment.

that's likely part of it, too.

.

Hillary won easily. Trump's constant interruptions and outright lies about his taxes and the effects his economic policies will have show just how unfit for this position he is. If he can't handle Hillary informing us about thing he has actually said and done, how is he supposed to be a substantial force in our foreign affairs?

Hillary won the debate but lost voters.
She really is the epiphany of all that people don't like about politicians.
Plastic, lying, smarmy.... Whereas Trump came across as unprepared but human.

Throughout the primaries the pundits never gave him a debate win, it was always Rubio or Cruz.
Online polls though always said he won as they did after this debate.

The people know who they like better than the media think they know.
Trump steamrolled the popular vote far exceeding expectations. He will do so again at the main event

Trump did quite well considering he was fighting 2 opponents

@indibob: If you paid attention to Reddit (/r/The_Donald) and 4Chan, you would notice huge posts dedicated into bombarding online polls to show Trump won the debate. Thus, I would put more faith into polls conducted by phone.

The question is what does it mean to win the debate.

Hillary was better prepared, declaimed wiser and generaly presented herself better.

But I think noone there won the votes of the undecided minority.
In this sad times people don't really care what politicians say, rather how they look or if they shout some populistic slogans loud and often.

Still, what does it mean to win a debate?
Well, no comunist nor trockist is capable of winning any debate in my eyes anymore. :p

But in democracy this are the voters, who decide who win debates, even if you have nothing interesting to say and keep repeting the same things. And as I don't really believe in polls time will show I guess.

Btw, the anchorman was slightly against Trump.

And all the personal arguments they used against him...really?!?

Ah forgot that it is democracy...

I think they both didn't have the right level of preparation.

Hillary was too prepared, and within the first 15 minutes tried to reframe the debate twice. The first attempt- trying to reframe it about trade- was entirely unsuccessful, and she abandoned it not long after attempting it. The second one, however, (when she mentioned the 2008 financial crisis) allowed Trump to take some massive bait. It was an example of Trump's defensiveness, that imo got him the loss, and Hillary's over-preparedness which made her weaker.

Trump was underprepared; he made a lot of silly statements, like "It's called business", and interrupted like hell. It might work against Jeb, but Hillary is completely different.

What does this show? It shows that both of them have next-to-no actual debate experience, and they both struggle to rebut points made instantly. A good debater has to be able to rebut points instantly, by thinking on their feet, but both of them demonstrated that they can't think on their feet well.

http://qz.com/791320/2016-presidential-debate-how-to-win-a-debate-according-to-the-world-champion-harvard-debate-team/

I recommend reading this article. In summary, it has these 3 key points when it comes to presidential debates.

responsiveness, clarity, and authenticity.

responsiveness- the most important part, and Hillary beat Trump in this regard. While she couldn't immediately rebut points well, she did manage to reframe the debate several times to her advantage, where Trump generally took the bait.

clarity- As far as how clear they were, they won in different regards. To your average American, Trump won. He uses the vocabulary of an 8 year old, which is actually smart, because it allows him to connect to as many Americans as possible, and is perhaps why he is managing to gain loads of blue-collar working class votes. Hillary is more clear, in outlining her policies. She gives a much more clear direction of "Point A goes to Point B goes to Point C", up until Z. Donald, on the other hand, makes the vague assertion of "She didn't make this change for 30 years; that means I am your lord and saviour!" From an intellectual standpoint, Clinton beat Trump.

authenticity- While Trump suffered a little from the whole tax-returns debacle of his, he managed to refute the claims against him quickly by diverting it to Hillary's clear opaque attitude. In general, Clinton: isn't very authentic; likes to flip-flop; has been involved in numerous scandals, and so on & so forth.

However, I feel like because of Clinton's policies+policy clarity+policy choice, that she makes a better candidate than The Donald right now, despite her unreliable tendencies.

Whatever happens, USA is going to be a shitty country for the next 4 years.

+1 Paugers

^^How am I cancer? Cancer is badically zombie cells and I am not a zombie or a cell.

thread derailed

Sorry if I'm steering the thread away from the OP's intent, but one question I had, perhaps a sub-topic of "who won the debate" is:
"Who won the debate on TPP sub-topic?"

Might be kind of a hard question to answer since they are both against it, yet there are a LOT of unanswered questions about the candidates positions on this.

If the debate was TLDWatch, here's a summary.

Trump: Kept comparing it to NAFTA and saying that it would be AWFUL if approved, and that the only reason that Hillary disapproves is it now (after calling it the GOLD STANDARD) is because she saw Trump diapprove first, but that as soon as she's in office, she'll approve.

Clinton: I only support trade deals that are great for the US. This isn't great deal, so I don't support it, and she thinks she only said she hoped it would be a great trade deal, not that it was.

So here's some questions:
1) Why is Trump, a GOP, so opposed to the deal that the GOP would typically support?
2) Why is Clinton, a DEM, so opposed to the deal that Barry O (and John Kerry) want to enact so badly?
3) Why can Clinton distance herself from it now after playing a crucial role in negotiating for it on behalf of the US?

As related to the debate, I only think that Trump is against TPP because he is courting the manufacturing worker vote. He did a good job on this point, but I really think the MSM needs to get on her for her flip/flop on this position especially because she negotiated it and now says it stinks.

I also think that Trump was partially right about Hillary's support for the TPP. She still wants it to go through, but is trying to win over that sector of the vote. What will actually happen is that Lame Duck Barrack will enact the TPP.

EDIT: I also think this is a major topic because TPP is going to be bigger than NAFTA and is on par with the trade agreements of the EU. To think nothing will happen because of TPP (Either way, being passed or not being passed) is silly.

Edited 9/29/2016 20:55:21

I really wouldn't make TPP out to be something party-specific.

ie. Bernie Sanders was also against the TPP, and is a democrat.

The whole flipflop nonsense is also, just that. Nonsense. Peoples opinions change over time, particularly as they learn more about a topic.

People always draw out the following scenario:

Hillary spoke positively about a topic x years ago when public opinion of the topic was positive.

Now, she speaks negatively of it because the public opinion has changed.

Public pinion changing means people changed their mind. Lots of people. Why is it okay for everyone but her to change their mind on a topic? We can evolve and change our opinions as our knowledge and understanding of a topic increases. But if she does the same she's just changing her "opinion" on a whim to satisfy others by telling them what they want to hear.


It can't work both ways, either the general publics opinions on topics doesn't change (it does), or she's allowed to change her opinion over time as well.

Too many people take the stance of: I can change my mind, so can the people of this nation, but as a politician you need to stand by things you said years ago. Anything else is hypocrisy. The reality is that making such a statement is the real hypocrisy.

@nauzhror, But she is on the record stating that she always judges all trade deals evenly.. asking the question, will this be good for the US, good for US workers.

She negotiated it and said it was the gold standard.

She runs for office, and is now against it.

So, either she is a crap negotiator, she doesn't judge all trade deals evenly, or she is just pandering.

I just watched the debate on YT and sheez, no wonder both of them are the lowest-approved candidates for both parties.

Hillary mostly kept herself cool but I assume that's from political experience, in which Trump has near-zero.

doesn't mean she's crooked as f tho.

i'm confused why Obama veto'd the 9/11 bill and then the Senate voted 97-1 to override his veto.

and why Obama is for TPP but both Hillary and Trump are against it.

is Obama going rogue or something? weird to see both parties in agreement against him on two separate issues.

One, Obama is going to get more blame for the badness 1000s Islamic state land does in response and the senate will get less so they don't care,two, Clinton negotiated and backed the TPP and no one except you believes she actually is against it.

Nauzhror,

You're missing a key difference here. It's not the fact that Hillary has changed her mind on a few things, it's that her mind seems to change automatically whenever the public opinion shifts. Her positions are completely dependent upon whatever her target groups currently like or dislike. She has no solid principals, she just goes with whatever is popular with mainstream liberals at the time.

There's a difference between letting your opinions evolve naturally based on your own conclusions, and then there's being a fake chameleon whose ideology shifts with the wind.