Monday's Debate

The much-hyped presidential debate will go one of three ways.

1. Most likely outcome: both candidates will repeat much-rehearsed campaign stump speeches and nothing will come out of it.

2. Second most likely outcome: Hillary will attack Don and he will sputter and come off like a petulant 5-year old. Hillary's ratings will sink because she's perceived as a bully, and his will rise because he was being attacked (unfairly, to the FNC crowd).

3.  Least likely scenario: Don will attack Hillary, she will appear defensive and beleaguered. She will sputter, he will find topics she's vulnerable on, she will start answering ""I'll have to research that and get back to you" and thus appear evasive and untrustworthy.

In other words, although Hillary should be able to wipe the floor with Donald in any face to face debate, in two of the three scenarios she will lose this debate.

I heard a short commentary on the radio, might have been on NPR, wondering why "the candidates' debate" couldn't be a REAL debate: just put the two candidates on stage with no moderator and let them go at it.

Instead we get scripted questions, which the candidates have been pre-warned to have scripted answers to, with the occasional sideways jab at their opponent. There probably will be very little back-and-forth between the candidates.

Which is a shame. We'd learn a lot more in a real debate.

I don't know that we would. Trump will be talking over Hillary as it is. Without a moderator or sensible questions, all you would get is both of them talking at the same time with most things said being untrue, beside the point, or both.

Getting ready for the debate: took some Dramamine® and Xanax.

My debate prep has entailed three glasses of grape juice.

Fermented.

What's with Trump's sniffing? Did he do cocaine before coming onstage?

Uh-oh. Trump is majorly melting down.

Where's Lester Holt? He's supposed to be bringing Donald back on-topic.

Trump's favorite word is "unbelievable."

I wonder if he knows what it means?

Both Fox and MSNBC have called the debate a solid win for Clinton.

Interesting.

I didn't watch. I was busy, honest.

I would rate the debate a solid win for Clinton. Donald came off as immature, his use of language is like a 5-year old, and he could not help himself from saying "not true" every time Clinton spoke.

I would say the outcome was 70% outcome #1 and 30% outcome #2. He was on the defensive all night.

NoCoPilot wrote:

What's with Trump's sniffing?  Did he do cocaine before coming onstage?

I was thinking the same thing.

NoCoPilot wrote:

He was on the defensive all night.

I find him to be quite offensive.

NoCoPilot wrote:

_Howard wrote:

I was thinking the same thing.

You're not the only one.

There wasn't any sniffling. It was a bad mic, according to America's Orange Hemorrhoid:
On Tuesday, Trump floated the theory that debate moderators gave him a bad microphone on purpose. While on “Fox and Friends,” he said his mic at Monday’s debate was “terrible.”

Trump denied there was any sniffling. He said the microphone was very bad, “but maybe it was good enough to hear breathing. But there was no sniffles.”

What's that called? Trump's own "reality distortion field"?

For Trump, reality is like evolution and global warming: just a theory.

The majority opinion is that Trump lost the debate in a blowout.

But there are alternative  views.

Sun Myung Moon wrote:

At the same time, Mr. Trump was aggressive, projecting authority even when he was on relatively shaky ground. Unlike others who have opposed her, he didn’t care that she was a Clinton or a Democrat or a woman. He didn’t defer to her, offer special treatment or allow her a wide berth for Clintonian parsing. Relishing his outsider role, he positioned her squarely in her role of status quo incumbent. By doing so and by clearing the bar of appearing a reasonable man and plausible president, he lived to fight another day.