Did the 3rd debate matter?

jamesrage said:

No debate in the world is going to make me vote for Trump or Clinton. Presidential debates are for those who pay little to no attention to politics.

Click to expand...

In other words 80-90% of the eligible voters

humbolt said:

Heh. I'm the opposite, but only barely so. I only hope that if I actually do vote for Trump, that I don't feel the need to blow my brains out 6 months from now out of shame and embarrassment. I believe Trump will get the economy growing at a more robust rate, and those younger than me really need that right now. Beyond that, I don't trust either of 'em.

Click to expand...

I understand this, humbolt. I looked long and hard at Trump for quite awhile. The reason? He's a change agent. And I was willing to roll the dice, and hope for the best. But finally I not only chickened-out, but too many of his negatives towards others got to me.

But the deal is - he might not be as bad as many fear. With all change is risk.

I think one's feelings on Trump will be largely dependent on one's personal satisfaction. If you feel content with your lot and the way things are going, and you're optimistic about the future - HRC's your girl. But if you're unhappy with your lot or the way the country's going, you might take a risk with Trump.

And perhaps the most ironic thing of this election is: The 'happys' and 'unhappys' cannot seem to fathom that the other guy doesn't feel the way they do!

My "predictions"(not what I want) have been the same since 2012 right after obama won.
Ive said many times over these last 4 years if Hillary gets the nomination (because I wasnt sure she would get it if Biden, Sanders or Booker ran, again not what I want, what I was predicting) she will be the next president because I dont see the right offering the type of candidate it will take to beat her. They will offer an either a nutty far right candidate like Cruz or Huckabee or something else crazy that wont be able to unite people. Nutters like palin, carson, Bachman, Cain, Trump or West.

Well that was pretty spot on and now here we are ....

also being somebody that talks politics the majority of the year and actually participates locally once the nominees were picked there was practically ZERO change of me not knowing who I would vote for between Clinton and Trump.

The debates could have impacted wither I vote other or Clinton but thats about it. What actually has more power over my vote is other people/trump. If I thought he had a legit shot I would vote Clinton to keep Trump out. I called this one many moons ago and even offered bets to trump supporters, NONE were willing to bet.

Hopefully this debacle speeds up and loosens the grip that the two party system has on us. A Trump presidency would have probably done that even better but he isnt worth the risk.

Chomsky said:

You're welcome.

BTW, take a read of the Fox article if you don't mind - it's short, and comprised of demographic quantitative analysis. Looking at the numbers contained in the article might give you pause, if you're still expecting a close race.

The problem the GOP had, was Donald was indeed Teflon through the Primary and deep into the General, snookering them and leaving them little recourse but to support him, until now when it's all too late the Teflon effect has worn off!

Click to expand...

The problem the GOP had in the primaries is that they knew that a significant portion of Trump's base did indeed consist of primary voters that were motivated by his overt racism, bigotry and / or sexism. They could not paint him as the bigot and sexist he is though because they wanted those voters for themselves and thus they did not want to anger those voters. There is a cancer in the Republican Party. This is evidenced by the fact that the most overtly racist, bigoted and sexist candidate since George Wallace got more Republican Primary votes than any candidate in history. Trump isn't that cancer, he just slapped his name on it.

As I have said on here all year long, the Clinton campaign would not worry about offending Trump's racist and bigoted base, but rather would paint him as a racist, sexist and bigot and thus ensure that his racist and bigoted base is all he has voting for him come election day.

SouthernDemocrat said:

The problem the GOP had in the primaries is that they knew that a significant portion of Trump's base did indeed consist of primary voters that were motivated by his overt racism, bigotry and / or sexism. They could not paint him as the bigot and sexist he is though because they wanted those voters for themselves and thus they did not want to anger those voters. There is a cancer in the Republican Party. This is evidenced by the fact that the most overtly racist, bigoted and sexist candidate since George Wallace got more Republican Primary votes than any candidate in history. Trump isn't that cancer, he just slapped his name on it.

As I have said on here all year long, the Clinton campaign would not worry about offending Trump's racist and bigoted base, but rather would paint him as a racist, sexist and bigot and thus ensure that his racist and bigoted base is all he has voting for him come election day.

Click to expand...

Well, that's an excellent call there then.

I may not be a democrat, but for the reason above (and many, many, more) I will never be a Republican!

No, this debate didn't change my mind. I appreciated that Mike Wallace was the best mod. He did a good job making the crowd shut up, and even controlled the two candidates fairly well, when they interrupted or went over their times.

I did hear one of the late night talk show guys saying that the "circus" wants its name back. Apparently, circus people are tired of everyone referring to this election as a circus.

Chomsky said:

Well, that's an excellent call there then.

I may not be a democrat, but for the reason above (and many, many, more) I will never be a Republican!

Click to expand...

I said that is exactly what they would 6 months ago and half the Republicans on here argued with me about it. It was easy to see this coming.

That said, the Democratic base needs to halt its move to the left or they will find themselves in the same situation they were in back in the late 70s and 80s.

Chomsky said:

I understand this, humbolt. I looked long and hard at Trump for quite awhile. The reason? He's a change agent. And I was willing to roll the dice, and hope for the best. But finally I not only chickened-out, but too many of his negatives towards others got to me.

But the deal is - he might not be as bad as many fear. With all change is risk.

I think one's feelings on Trump will be largely dependent on one's personal satisfaction. If you feel content with your lot and the way things are going, and you're optimistic about the future - HRC's your girl. But if you're unhappy with your lot or the way the country's going, you might take a risk with Trump.

And perhaps the most ironic thing of this election is: The 'happys' and 'unhappys' cannot seem to fathom that the other guy doesn't feel the way they do!

Click to expand...

what lots of people miss is the total package

If Hillary wins and we have a GOP senate (which will only increase in seats in 2018) we will get the same that we have now

If Trump wins it doesnt matter who has the senate-we will get the same as we have now

but if Hillary wins and the Dems have the senate, we will see radical encroachments on property rights, firearms rights, and probably free speech.

Kreton said:

For everything that was said, and all the post debate discussions, did the 3rd debate matter? Did it change many votes?

Click to expand...

I'd hope so. No matter what one's (usually a tad lopsided) opinion of Clinton is, one thing is undeniable: Trump can only maintain self-control for 20-30 minutes, after which he simply melts down. He is a childish thin-skinned bully who starts spluttering and lying the second anything negative is said about him.

On every metric that Clinton is bad, Trump is worse, usually by far. He is a disgusting excuse for a human being.

SouthernDemocrat said:

I said that is exactly what they would 6 months ago and half the Republicans on here argued with me about it. It was easy to see this coming.

That said, the Democratic base needs to halt its move to the left or they will find themselves in the same situation they were in back in the late 70s and 80s.

Click to expand...

Amen!

I was a lifelong Dem, before. I fully agree. Though I do like Sander's economic principles, and would like to see single-payer healthcare.

TurtleDude said:

what lots of people miss is the total package

If Hillary wins and we have a GOP senate (which will only increase in seats in 2018) we will get the same that we have now

If Trump wins it doesnt matter who has the senate-we will get the same as we have now

but if Hillary wins and the Dems have the senate, we will see radical encroachments on property rights, firearms rights, and probably free speech.

Click to expand...

I'll touch on these.

1] Property rights - I don't see this (not that I watch her like a Hawk). I'm hoping for more liberal less law & order type judges that will reel-in things like asset forfeiture, etc.

2] Guns - For the hard gun crowd as yourself, you are right. She is not going to support unfettered access, and has already referred to Heller's allowance of 'limitations' (referenced during the debate).

3] Free Speech - Well, that's interesting. You may have a point, but I hope not. I suppose you're talking about P.C. type stuff here.

But she is against Citizen's United, so I'm with her there. I'd hope more liberal Judges might push back on NSA type intrusions, too.

I just wish I followed this stuff closer.

Kreton said:

Those conspiracy theories do seem to have some merit. Some of his statements/donations/actions in the past and his present day mishaps certainly would support those theories. I dont believe them, but I get how others could.

Click to expand...

There are Republicans out there that swear by them. Of course the Democrats deny them. But one has to wonder as it seems day in and day out he is playing right into Hillary Clinton's play book. As many traps as Trump has fell into, Clinton couldn't have set them all.

It does seem Trump set out to fracture the Republican Party during the primaries, he succeeded in doing that. But that success earned him the nomination. That may be something he never thought would happen. It will be interesting to see what historians say about this race in 20 years or so. It is hard to fathom that all Trump mistakes and miscues were caused by his ineptness at being a campaigner. I'm not sure what to believe.

No, it didn't change anything for me (as I can't vote in the US, it's just my opinion of the candidates).

My respect for Trump was somewhere on the negative side of the scale (and I didn't even know this scale has a negative side below zero) before, and he once again confirmed this opinion.

Seriously, someone who evaded taxes of ca. $1 billion and when asked about it, blames his opponent for it ... someone who is incapable of taking responsibility for a mistake but even after an "apology" immediately points with the finger at someone else who allegedly did worse ... a candidate who has so little respect for the most fundamental basics of the free, constitutional republic that he doesn't even unconditionally respects the outcome of a free election (which implicitly is a threat with civil war), or threatens to throw his political opponents in jail if elected ...

... someone using such a kind of "debate" tactics on the intellectual level of a 4th grade schoolyard bully is not worthy of *any* public office, let alone the Presidency. Even every single one of these incidents alone would have sufficed to destroy my respect for him root-and-branch. And that's not even mentioning all the other BS Trump kept spewing since day one, the offenses to all kinds of people, from immigrants over homosexuals up to war veterans and POWs.

And anybody who still supports such a candidate makes obvious by doing so, that he has forfeit any right on ever being taken seriously again.

jamesrage said:

No debate in the world is going to make me vote for Trump or Clinton. Presidential debates are for those who pay little to no attention to politics.

Click to expand...

I completely agree here. People will say, "I really like what he/she says! I'm gonna vote for him/her!"

But did you ever research what he's done and how he's voted in Congress or what he did as governor?

As silly as the daily political comedy shows can be, they do a service by making fun of these contradictions of candidates' actions vs rhetoric.