2016 Presidential Debates
- Thread starter Bazza
- Start date
Trump will not win Pennsylvania, I don't care what the polls say. It is the most unionized state in the country and you can take it to the bank that the union bosses will have their machines out on election day herding the votes for Hillary. It has not gone republican in a presidential election in over a generation((1988 in Reagan's 'third term' w/GHWB). And with early voting being what it is in Florida, I'd be very, very surprised if he can prevail there. I'd give Trump less than a 40% chance of actually winning Florida.
Last edited:
That's a tiny bit simplistic although your overall assessment is correct. It's a tradition thing. I think debates mattered much more in 1960 and even maybe up until 1992 when TV was the only exposure people had to candidates. In 1960, not everyone had a television. By 1980, pretty much everyone had one but - and I'm chuckling at this - I was watching the 1980 returns on You Tube out of curiosity the other night and Tom Brokaw was actually telling you what color a state would look like if you had a black and white TV!!!! One of them - John Chancellor, I think - said you should go out and buy a color TV.
But now it's overdone. With social media everyone knows within minutes when something happened. Look at the firing of Les Miles. I posted about it on Facebook BEFORE ESPN even reported it. That would not have happened in 1992, for example.
On the flip side let me reiterate: can anyone name a single candidate who was winning by a bunch and then lost BECAUSE of the debates? The most noted example is Kennedy-Nixon, but even that example is fraudulent. The race ended in a virtual tie in the popular vote, and the vote split at that time favored the Democrats anyway. As late as 1968, the percentage of people nationally who considered themselves Democrats was 54%, and you know that number was higher in 1960. So Kennedy BARELY won in a 'leans heavily Democratic' country.
How in the world do you say he won solely because of the debates?
Now let's take the most obvious examples that are appealed to real quickly. Ford liberated Eastern Europe in the second debate in 1976. But Ford was still way behind in the polls at that point (about 8-10 points) and he lost by two. So how can you say he lost because of the debates? When Reagan decked Mondale on the age question, he was 11 points ahead in the closest poll and routed Fritz. He was going to win anyway, debate or not. In 1988, Dukakis won the first debate on 9/25 - and actually fell further behind. Then, Bentsen clobbered Quayle on October 5th, and it still didn't matter. On the night before the second Dukakis-Bush debate, ABC News actually aired a broadcast that pretty much declared the election was over because Bush had an insurmountable lead in electoral votes. Bush then blew out Dukakis (mostly because of Dukakis' lame response to Bernie Shaw) and maintained his national lead to the end. Lost in the whole deal, though, was several states were so close that you could argue that if Dukakis had not botched that question he would have lost closer rather than lost big.
In 1992, everyone recalls Bush looking at his watch. Never mind that he was double digits behind at the time. That was, however, a moment that defined that campaign - because it reinforced the perception that Bush was out of touch and had his mind elsewhere at all times.
Nobody even talks about 1996 because the election was decided when Colin Powell refused to run.
Now - the 2000 debates were more interesting in one sense. NBC's poll had Gore up six on the day of the first debate. To this day, I've never been able to figure out how anyone WATCHING it could say Gore won. But did it cost him? Most likely not.
This map reinforces the fact that had the Republicans nominated Marco Rubio and he picked Kasich as his running mate, the election would be over and Rubio could already begin the transition.
Besides - some of his triumphs are states he's within the MOE.
I ended up watching some of it, as the wife wanted to tune in so we did. The impression I had beforehand was reinforced and is summed up in this meme I saw recently. It's probably been out there since these two won their primaries. Anyway, if you enjoyed the Harry Potter books/movies, here you go:
I woudn't be so sure about that. Until they can flip another state to take the place of Virginia, I think the republicans are pretty muched doomed in the electoral college.
That's who I voted for in the primary. Sadly, Trump's antics helped reveal Rubio wasn't ready from a maturity standpoint. But I do think you're correct. Absent the Trump bluster which flummoxed the entire Republican field, a Rubio would have breezed to a victory over Clinton.
The problem with Rubio is that he's not all that popular in his own state. Heck, he couldn't even win Florida in the primary, how could anyone expect him to win it in the general?
Excellent.....I ended up watching some of it, as the wife wanted to tune in so we did. The impression I had beforehand was reinforced and is summed up in this meme I saw recently. It's probably been out there since these two won their primaries. Anyway, if you enjoyed the Harry Potter books/movies, here you go:
You missed my point. (Remember I'm voting for neither.) You are still talking about substantive points. I'm saying that the substance didn't matter. Neither of them lost a single vote of their base. What I was saying was based on appearances alone. People who heard the Nixon/Kennedy debate on the radio thought Nixon won easily. She wanted to expose him as someone who is unstable in temperament and unfit for the presidency. He cooperated, IMO, as viewed by people undecided as to whether to trust him. However, there are two more debates to go. If he keeps on letting her rattle him and get under his skin, she'll win...
She actually looked more physically fit than he did. IMO, not a real issue but his supporters seemed to think physical fitness was a real issue before. Also, why so much "sniffing noises" when he talked?:conf2:
He's going to be on the ballot in Florida, and he's going to win. He doesn't have to be popular - he only has to be more popular than one other person.
But then comes the REALLY bad arguments...
1) Because it was already known even if he DID win, he wasn't going to be the nominee; that had already been pretty much settled.
2) He was running against FOUR other candidates including a former governor of the same state (who had withdrawn)
3) He and Cruz split the vote that would have mostly consolidated behind one candidate.
4) You fail to mention Rubio won his own GOP Senate primary with 72% of the vote.
Yeah, this is a REALLY bad argument. How many candidates do I have to list for you who lost a state primary but won it in the fall? The electorates aren't even the same.
Yes she looked remarkably composed and he looked disheveled and out of sorts.
By the way, has anyone called Sean Hannity and spoken to him yet about his conversations with Trump about the Iraq War?
By the way, has anyone called Sean Hannity and spoken to him yet about his conversations with Trump about the Iraq War?
You may be convinced of that, but I'm not. Florida has been trending democratic in presidential elections for some time now and I've seen nothing--including Rubio--that makes me think he would flip the state. AND even if he did, it would be by a razor thin margin.
Let's see what happens in 2020. If you're right, he should win the presidency that year.
Last edited:
Latest threads
-
-
Game One of Alabama-Texas A&M Alabama Series Moved to Friday as Part of Doubleheader- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Bama Game Thread: Bama Gymnastics - NCAA Championship Semi-finals (ESPN2 | 4/18 @ 8pm CT)- Started by BamaNation
- Replies: 29
-
No. 1 Visits Tuscaloosa for Second Straight Week as Alabama Hosts Top-Ranked Texas A&M
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
-
I'm Declaring the Emperor has no clothes (NCAA rules implosion)
- Started by BamaNation
- Replies: 35