Trump won on substance, Hillary won on tactics

[Little-Acorn]

Trump said pretty much the same things he has always said, most of them were good, solid ideas (meaning, they were correct). Hillary only made point where she said things that weren't true, or offered plans that have already been tried and failed. (This is what liberals normally do). She was relying heavily on her audience not knowing that, or having forgotten since the last time they heard it. A common characteristic of the so-called "Democrat base".

Hillary won on tactics. She was smooth, urbane, well prepared. She often ignored what Trump said (so much for a "debate"), and continued with her rehearsed speeches. She looked far more presidential than Trump, who snapped out instant replies, correcting her lies only to be ignored. Trump might have been prepared for giving speeches, but he was not prepared for a debate, and Hillary played him like a violin.

Each time he scored some points, she would casually misquote him or lie about something he said... a common tactic of liberals who can't run on facts, we see it here all the time when they are frantic to change the subject. And he fell into every trap, abandoning his main task (reiterating the facts of his positions and looking calm and presidential). Instead he got a truculent look on his face, bent down to the mike, interrupted her, and tried to talk over her, being impolite and uncouth. She had him on the defensive for much of the debate, getting him to try to correct unimportant points rather than ignore them and proceed to important matters such as comparisons between his plans and Hillary's or summing up her legislative history.

If it was just a matter of information and fact, he would clobber her, since he is far stronger in those than she is. But a debate is also a matter of tactics and appearances, and he lost that part hands down.

I was pretty disappointed in Trump. He wasn't born yesterday, and he should have known better. He's got a lot to learn about debating. It's not just giving a speech where an opponent can't knock you off stride in mid-sentence.

He's been learning a lot in the past year or so, running for President. I hope he can learn from this tactical debacle, and quickly.

P.S. WHERE WAS HIS CAMPAIGN STAFF who should have warned him on these tactics? The tactics aren't uncommon, especially when dealing with liberals, they are almost de rigueur. If they aren't briefing and training him on that, what ARE they working with him on??? He has to get a staff who will slap him upside the head when he needs it. Why didn't he?

[pete311]

Substance lol?

[bullypulpit]

Drumpf's performance was, essentially, word salad. Every comma, offered Drumpf a new direction for the sentence because it was going nowhere from the start. To claim Drumpf carried on substance in the debate is, at best, self-deception. At worst, it is delusion.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Trump said pretty much the same things he has always said, most of them were good, solid ideas (meaning, they were correct). Hillary only made point where she said things that weren't true, or offered plans that have already been tried and failed. (This is what liberals normally do). She was relying heavily on her audience not knowing that, or having forgotten since the last time they heard it. A common characteristic of the so-called "Democrat base".

Hillary won on tactics. She was smooth, urbane, well prepared. She often ignored what Trump said (so much for a "debate"), and continued with her rehearsed speeches. She looked far more presidential than Trump, who snapped out instant replies, correcting her lies only to be ignored. Trump might have been prepared for giving speeches, but he was not prepared for a debate, and Hillary played him like a violin.

Each time he scored some points, she would casually misquote him or lie about something he said... a common tactic of liberals who can't run on facts, we see it here all the time when they are frantic to change the subject. And he fell into every trap, abandoning his main task (reiterating the facts of his positions and looking calm and presidential). Instead he got a truculent look on his face, bent down to the mike, interrupted her, and tried to talk over her, being impolite and uncouth. She had him on the defensive for much of the debate, getting him to try to correct unimportant points rather than ignore them and proceed to important matters such as comparisons between his plans and Hillary's or summing up her legislative history.

If it was just a matter of information and fact, he would clobber her, since he is far stronger in those than she is. But a debate is also a matter of tactics and appearances, and he lost that part hands down.

I was pretty disappointed in Trump. He wasn't born yesterday, and he should have known better. He's got a lot to learn about debating. It's not just giving a speech where an opponent can't knock you off stride in mid-sentence.

He's been learning a lot in the past year or so, running for President. I hope he can learn from this tactical debacle, and quickly.

P.S. WHERE WAS HIS CAMPAIGN STAFF who should have warned him on these tactics? The tactics aren't uncommon, especially when dealing with liberals, they are almost de rigueur. If they aren't briefing and training him on that, what ARE they working with him on??? He has to get a staff who will slap him upside the head when he needs it. Why didn't he?

If she got away with lying and such misdirection it had to be with uninformed masses and not truly educated people.
Yes, lib/dems always use such tactics and only the blind fail to see or consider such .....
If informed and not biased/blind -then one knows she did not win anything unless its the usual approval coming from ignorant masses -which she pretty much already had.
News, media and the usual spin was going to declare her the winner if she just showed up and never uttered a damn word. --Tyr

[revelarts]

Neither Trump or Hillary had any substance.
At least none they could honestly say they've consistently supported.
They both promoted policies they think would appease their base and maybe scope up a few others.

But Hillary did beat Trump in the ...I can look like a rational half way decent human being longer than Trump can... category.

one republican commentator put it this way

<tbody>
... Trump was reduced to a sputtering mess blathering about Rosie O’Donnell and about how he hasn’t yet said the mean things about Hillary that he is thinking....

</tbody>
That kinda stuff is what's truly amazing and sad... I still have a hard time grasping that people think this guy is presidential material. Seriously, what leader, or decent person says crap like that?
"i'm being very nice.. your daughter is in the audience..."
But don't push me, i could f***kn' snap at any moment... is implied.
"By the way, I have the best temperament."
WTH?!

Hillary used poise to contrast to his manic ...issues.
I won't say he's crazy I'm not a dr, but somethings wrong with the guy IMO. Great TV/radio personality hohho, and wacky eccentric rich guy. what a character that Trump is, a HOOT! Ok fine. But president? uh H3ll no.

But that doesn't mean Hillary isn't a freakish lying machine, deeply corrupt, establishment tool. But it does mean that she can hold her crap together long enough to make a good impression as a generally rational human being.

[Perianne]

one republican commentator put it this way

<tbody>
... Trump was reduced to a sputtering mess blathering about Rosie O’Donnell and about how he hasn’t yet said the mean things about Hillary that he is thinking....

</tbody>




John Mordecai Podhoretz...need I say it?

[revelarts]

John Mordecai Podhoretz...need I say it?
say what?

[Kathianne]

Neither Trump or Hillary had any substance.
At least none they could honestly say they've consistently supported.
They both promoted policies they think would appease their base and maybe scope up a few others.

But Hillary did beat Trump in the ...I can look like a rational half way decent human being longer than Trump can... category.

one republican commentator put it this way

<tbody>
... Trump was reduced to a sputtering mess blathering about Rosie O’Donnell and about how he hasn’t yet said the mean things about Hillary that he is thinking....

</tbody>
That kinda stuff is what's truly amazing and sad... I still have a hard time grasping that people think this guy is presidential material. Seriously, what leader, or decent person says crap like that?
"i'm being very nice.. your daughter is in the audience..."
But don't push me, i could f***kn' snap at any moment... is implied.
"By the way, I have the best temperament."
WTH?!

Hillary used poise to contrast to his manic ...issues.
I won't say he's crazy I'm not a dr, but somethings wrong with the guy IMO. Great TV/radio personality hohho, and wacky eccentric rich guy. what a character that Trump is, a HOOT! Ok fine. But president? uh H3ll no.

But that doesn't mean Hillary isn't a freakish lying machine, deeply corrupt, establishment tool. But it does mean that she can hold her crap together long enough to make a good impression as a generally rational human being.

The bar is so low, but she does speaking in sentences and paragraphs that one can follow.

[revelarts]

The bar is so low, but she does speaking in sentences and paragraphs that one can follow.

You know, in a just little bit better world, where the "independent" media wasn't a part of the establishment status quo machine. They could expose and turn enough people to 3rd parties to actually destroy these 2 creeps campaigns.
imagine if the media continually exposed and questioned both of them on their hypocrisies, lies, corruption and crimes and then showed the 3rd party candidates as alternatives.
there are enough people disgusted with both of them, principled people on the left and right and many undecided would funnel off in various directions. and make this a truly interesting race.

ah well.
it's fun to dream.

[Kathianne]

You know, in a just little bit better world, where the "independent" media wasn't a part of the establishment status quo machine. They could expose and turn enough people to 3rd parties to actually destroy these 2 creeps campaigns.
imagine if the media continually exposed and questioned both of them on their hypocrisies, lies, corruption and crimes and then showed the 3rd party candidates as alternatives.
there are enough people disgusted with both of them, principled people on the left and right and many undecided would funnel off in various directions. and make this a truly interesting race.

ah well.
it's fun to dream.

I'd like to see a 3rd party candidate that actually seemed more normal. With that said, with the bar so very low, 'with these two ijits, Johnson looks good enough. That's sad.