Posted on 09/27/2016 8:27:07 AM PDT by LS
As I predicted yesterday, Trump “won” the debate. If one looks at the various reactions, especially from “neverTrumpers” like Ben Shapiro or John Podhoretz, you get pretty much what you’d expect: “whaaaaa, whaaaa, we told you so, he can’t debate, she won.” The trouble is, these people are as out of touch with ordinary Americans as Cankles is.
First, yesterday I said that it would not matter who “won’ the debate (the style points, etc.) What mattered was who the polls said won, and the vast, overwhelming majority say Trump won—often by 20 points or more.
Now of course these polls are unreliable. That’s not the point. For 20 years the Democrats have played this game of controlling the post-debate polls, when they then become the story. Now the shoe is on the other foot because of Trump’s massive, near-total control of social media. (Yesterday he was pulling almost 2 million Twitter mentions before the debate vs. 395,000 Cankles mentions—a whopping 4:1 advantage, very similar to that of Obama in 2008). So Trump’s army votes in the online polls.
This is the modern internet version of the phrase, “It’s not who votes that counts but who counts the votes.” It’s not who wins the debate that counts but who counts who wins the debate, and right now that’s the internet-active public. Whiny neverTrumpers like Podhoretz still have no clue what has really happened, but this was the same exact scenario we saw in the primaries: Ted Cruz, or John Kasich, or Marco Rubio (according to the media elites) “won” every one of those debates, yet Trump really “won” the polls afterwards (almost every time) and crushed them in the poll that counted, votes. The same thing is playing out now.
In many ways this is rewarding and funny, for the drive-by media two decades ago decided that to expand their viewership/readership they had to get more “interactive,” so they began including polls. Moreover, they convinced themselves they had to actually pay attention to these and report on these. Uh oh! Here comes Trump with his SocMed dominance and they are now hoisted on their own digital petards.
So those who didn’t see the debate see that Trump won. But of those who did see the debate—how did they score it?
There are some key indicators. This article (http://nypost.com/2016/09/26/the-best-debate-takes-come-from-inside-the-bar/) from a Pennsylvania bar suggests Trump gained ground with Indies, Cankles lost ground. This article from North Carolina shows that if Trump didn’t gain, Cankles again lost ground (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article104382951.html). Frank Luntz, whose “focus groups” with their dials are often suspect, did not have Trump spiking much (even among his supporters), but they did have Cankles tank badly among independents and undecided voters—again, indicating she turned off those she desperately needs to reach.
Then there is this poll by Gravis taken immediately post-debate: (https://www.scribd.com/document/325456792/National-Poll-September-26-2016-Post-Debate-Poll). This is fascinating. Some 95% of those polled did not change their mind, but 4% percent did: of those, 3% went to Trump, 1% to Cankles, for a net shift of 2% undecideds to Trump. That would be the famous “undecideds breaking 2:1 in favor of the challenger,” and would mean that in most polls where you have undecideds at about 12%, Trump will add another 8% to his totals, roughly putting him at 52% . . . right where I’ve had him since January.
Moreover, at the bottom of the Gravis poll, there is the question, “If you did not change your mind, who are you still for?” Trump wins that 48-43—but wait! That does NOT include those who DID change their minds, so the final actual poll result is .Trump 51, Cankles 44.
If anyone can clean up the links a little, I’m appreciative.
Post debate analysis here. BTW, Scott Adams of Dilbert fame agrees pretty much with my conclusions, though he arrives at it by a different path.
One sure way to know trump won is that the guy who is wrong about everything, Judge Napolitano, said he got creamed and Hillary was actually likable.
Nice work, Judge, don’t ever change.
Thanks LS.
I understand your ideas, but I still am puzzled WHY Trump would ever agree to an MSM-sponsored debate in the first place.
We all knew the statist, corrupt, alphabet media would put forth questions and moderators like Lester Holt. So why did Trump agree to it? There are so many other forums he could have chosen.
I only heard a few soundbites. Did Hillary say to Trump, “you didn’t pay any federal income taxes?”
How could she know this? Did she just admit someone in the IRS is giving her information? Is the IRS leaking Trump’s info? Trump could have slammed that one out of the park accusing her and the IRS of committing multiple felonies. He could have shut her up and say “Well Clinton, I have to minimize my taxes, I can’t just head over to Wall Stree and make half a million giving a 20 minute speech or have the Saudis give me another million dollar donation.
Shoulda Coulda Woulda.
As I predicted yesterday, Trump “won” the debate. If one looks at the various reactions, especially from “neverTrumpers” like Ben Shapiro or John Podhoretz, you get pretty much what you’d expect: “whaaaaa, whaaaa, we told you so, he can’t debate, she won.” The trouble is, these people are as out of touch with ordinary Americans as Cankles is.
First, yesterday I said that it would not matter who “won’ the debate (the style points, etc.) What mattered was who the polls said won, and the vast, overwhelming majority say Trump won—often by 20 points or more.
Now of course these polls are unreliable. That’s not the point. For 20 years the Democrats have played this game of controlling the post-debate polls, when they then become the story. Now the shoe is on the other foot because of Trump’s massive, near-total control of social media. (Yesterday he was pulling almost 2 million Twitter mentions before the debate vs. 395,000 Cankles mentions—a whopping 4:1 advantage, very similar to that of Obama in 2008). So Trump’s army votes in the online polls.
This is the modern internet version of the phrase, “It’s not who votes that counts but who counts the votes.” It’s not who wins the debate that counts but who counts who wins the debate, and right now that’s the internet-active public. Whiny neverTrumpers like Podhoretz still have no clue what has really happened, but this was the same exact scenario we saw in the primaries: Ted Cruz, or John Kasich, or Marco Rubio (according to the media elites) “won” every one of those debates, yet Trump really “won” the polls afterwards (almost every time) and crushed them in the poll that counted, votes. The same thing is playing out now.
In many ways this is rewarding and funny, for the drive-by media two decades ago decided that to expand their viewership/readership they had to get more “interactive,” so they began including polls. Moreover, they convinced themselves they had to actually pay attention to these and report on these. Uh oh! Here comes Trump with his SocMed dominance and they are now hoisted on their own digital petards.
So those who didn’t see the debate see that Trump won. But of those who did see the debate—how did they score it?
There are some key indicators. This article from a Pennsylvania bar suggests Trump gained ground with Indies, Cankles lost ground. This article from North Carolina shows that if Trump didn’t gain, Cankles again lost ground. Frank Luntz, whose “focus groups” with their dials are often suspect, did not have Trump spiking much (even among his supporters), but they did have Cankles tank badly among independents and undecided voters—again, indicating she turned off those she desperately needs to reach.
Then there is this poll by Gravis taken immediately post-debate. This is fascinating. Some 95% of those polled did not change their mind, but 4% percent did: of those, 3% went to Trump, 1% to Cankles, for a net shift of 2% undecideds to Trump. That would be the famous “undecideds breaking 2:1 in favor of the challenger,” and would mean that in most polls where you have undecideds at about 12%, Trump will add another 8% to his totals, roughly putting him at 52% . . . right where I’ve had him since January.
Moreover, at the bottom of the Gravis poll, there is the question, “If you did not change your mind, who are you still for?” Trump wins that 48-43—but wait! That does NOT include those who DID change their minds, so the final actual poll result is .Trump 51, Cankles 44.
Most Snap polls show Trump winning debate in a landslide!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3809204/Most-snap-polls-Trump-winning-debate-landslide.html
Hillary marginally won the debate last night but Trump won the Presidency last night.
Yeah, if this crap comes up again, Trump need hammer it down.
“And exactly how do you know so much about my taxes, Hillary?”
Clean it up? Why, you’ve stated what everyone needed to read. Trump came across as a gentleman last night. He did manage to get in a few zingers. As for the other candidate, she didn’t freeze, didn’t fall over in a catatonic state and (unexpectedly) arrived behind the podium leaving her cough behind. Can’t imagine any who look forward to seeing that face, hearing that voice for the next 4, perhaps 8 years. At least not any who are as of now endowed with a sane mind and spirit.
Mr. Trump, congratulations! Now take what you’ve learned and next time take off your gloves, come out swinging. Your team needs a few solid contact hits on occasion - just to right the score board after years of abuse.
I agree with you 100% Trump won the Oval Office last night!!!
I think because it helped him get Democrat undecideds, as evidenced by the NY Post article and others at the OP.
Trump’s time to selectively recuse himself from what he may deem as unfair, whether it’s a debate or an interview or whatever, has passed now... we’re well into the general. It doesn’t matter anymore anyway, because he has what it takes and we, the base, are not budging... He’s proving that he can smash them where it counts and on their own turf...
The man has balls made of solid brass!
And there’s the 7-8 point lead I’ve calculated for Trump, which should translate to 300+ EVs.
Just watch what Mika Breszinsky said on Morning Joe this morning. Oddly enough she gets it. Hillary won pts last night but Trump won votes.
You gotta play the cards you’re dealt. Trump is fighting a multi-front war. Hillary, LSM, and GOPe.
Considering the deck was stacked against him, he did pretty darn well. And first round, a little rope-a-dope may not be a bad strategy. Let the enemy shoot their wad right off the bat, and don’t go down, and still make plenty of hits.
Such apparent calculation on her part just reveals an insensitivity to how citizens think.
For instance, that ridiculous "shimmy" thing she did following one Trump comment appeared to be the action of an arrogant, silly person who may believe that such a shenanigan may appeal to millennials or some other segment of her "basket" of citizens, but it came from an almost 70-year-old grandmother who exhibits no understanding of the disaster she and her fellow “progressives” have brought upon all of them.
If he didn't, the lamestream media and the Clinton campaign (yes, I repeated myself) would cast it as "Trump is afraid to debate Hillary".
The only way to beat this is for the Republicans to present a united front, and run their primary debates properly. Several people have made good proposals, like:
At the end of the primary season, the Republicans say: we are holding a debate in this manner. You can join us, if you want. Our candidate won't be attending a debate run by the media.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.