Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Who Won?

New York Times columnist, Dave Leonhardt, sums up last night's presidential debate succinctly:

He lied about the loan his father once gave him.

He lied about his company’s bankruptcies.

He lied about his federal financial-disclosure forms.

He lied about his endorsements.

He lied about “stop and frisk.”

He lied about “birtherism.”

He lied about New York.

He lied about Michigan and Ohio.

He lied about Palm Beach, Fla.

He lied about Janet Yellen and the Federal Reserve.

He lied about the trade deficit.

He lied about Hillary Clinton’s tax plan.

He lied about her child-care plan.

He lied about China devaluing its currency.

He lied about Mexico having the world’s largest factories.

He lied about the United States’s nuclear arsenal.

He lied about NATO’s budget.

He lied about NATO’s terrorism policy.

He lied about ISIS.

He lied about his past position on the Iraq War.

He lied about his past position on the national debt.

He lied about his past position on climate change.

He lied about calling pregnancy an “inconvenience” for employers.

He lied about calling women “pigs.”

He lied about calling women “dogs.”

He lied about calling women “slobs.”

So… who won the debate?


Anonymous said...

Does it really matter who won? Both are terrible candidates.

the salamander said...

.. haha .. succinct analysis ..

Troy said...

This election is Clinton's to lose, and she is perfectly capable of doing just that.
Usually, Democrats win elections by inspiring people to get out and vote, but Clinton's unwilling or unable to do that. She's running her campaign as a Republican would, and that's depressed the Democrat vote. It's a huge handicap, which has sunk previous Democrat candidates such as Gore and Kerry.
Oddly, Trump's really inspirational to a certain segment of the US population (the uneducated white, poor, and angry one), and they'll get out to vote for him, by hook or by crook. But he's depressed some of the Republican vote, so it might not be enough.
And with how poorly Clinton's running her campaign, that's all she can really hope for, that Trump's depressed more of the Republican vote than he's inspired to get out to vote.

The Mound of Sound said...

I really hope this is America's electoral "annus horribilis" so terrible that no one will dare allow it to be repeated. That, of course, would mean a lot of Republican soul-searching to find some means to drive out the hooligans. Then again perhaps America is too far gone for rehab.

Anonymous said...

When establishment backs a certain candidate, the prudent way of action is to choose the other candidate...

Anonymous said...

Could it be that the better educated US voter , disgusted by the candidate options, will fail to vote whilst the fanatics will carry the day for Trump?


crf said...

The debate would not have changed the minds of any committed voter. It is just possible that a few fence sitters would decide to vote Clinton after being repelled by Trump's slobbering spectacle. (But I only watched the last half the debate, and some news highlights. Apparently the thought-consensus is that Trump was better at the start of the debate and worse at the end.)

In the U.S. voting for a third party candidate is dumb: it is just like spoiling the ballot or not voting at all. And both Jill Stein and Gary Johnson are pretty flaky. So voters should hold their nose and pick one: and I hope they largely pick Clinton.

The Republicans will be kicking themselves come November, because the election is likely to be very close, and a better Republican candidate would be ahead of Clinton.