Home | About | Donate

Pundits Say Trump "Blew It" and Clinton "Won"—But What Do They Know?


Pundits Say Trump "Blew It" and Clinton "Won"—But What Do They Know?

Deirdre Fulton, staff writer

While the punditry—and not just on the left—was quick to hand a "win" to Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton after Monday night's presidential debate against GOP opponent Donald Trump, unscientific post-debate polls out Tuesday morning serve as a reminder to look outside the political echo chamber.


Even Trump surrogates seem to think he lost. Giuliani is recommending that Trump not engage in any more debates. Apparently a large segment of the public has dropped all conventional standards for office of president. They are apparently using standards from the entertainment world. The pundits probably all have college degrees. For most people with a college degree it would seem clear that Clinton was the winner. But for those without college degrees the debate was probably perceived differently. These two groups, the college-educated and those without a college education, clearly see these two candidates very differently. For the college education Hillary speaks like them, or the way they wish they could speak. For those without a college degree Trump speaks like them or the way they wish they could speak. Of course this is generalizing but the polls indicate level of education is playing an enormous role in who the voters support.


No, the only winner in last nights so-called debate was the people who always win...THE OLIGARCH'S OF WALL STREET AND THE MIC!


As an astute poster here (sorry, I don't remember which one) noted prior to the debate, the pundits will do the same thing they did to Sanders and declare Clinton the winner, regardless of how the debate actually went.

I see, also like Sanders, that all the online polls show the candidate the pundits declared the loser, winning.

What does that tell you about the level of enthusiasm online? With Sanders, one could make the case that he swept the online polls because he had the votes of the millennials, who are more active online.

I wonder what explains Trump's online win. Did the millennials move to him? Doesn't seem likely, although he may have gotten some disillusioned by seeing the DNC shaft Sanders. So either his supporters are more active online than Clinton's, or he simply has more supporters.

I agree with the last line in the article. We're the losers in the debate.

Don't pick your poison, pick your cure: Dr. Jill Stein/Ajamu Baraka 2016


For most shills for Clinton, at least those who want to remain employed, it would seem clear they have to say Clinton was the winner.


People who think that knowledge of the issues, logical reasoning, "facts," and maturity determine the public's feelings and attitudes toward the candidates are fooling themselves. The punditry class, no, the entire mainstream political establishment, have got it wrong. They declare Clinton the winner of the debate because she so clearly beat Trump in possessing those qualities. But that's not what the public saw. They saw a typical Washington insider, smooth, facile, bordering on smug and dismissive of her opponent, the very personification of what they've come to distrust and despise. Trump, in his crude, inarticulate fashion, came across as a man of the people, a populist rebel, a man, in short, like them—except, of course, he's not. He's a plutocratic billionaire, a thug, an aspiring autocrat, a shady dealer, and a cheat, but none of that matters. What does is that millions of Americans have had it with the status quo. Voting for Trump offers them a chance to "stick it to the man." Trump won the debate because he's not Clinton. He's a whirlwind that the struggling masses, the dispossessed, the angry, the jobless, the precariat, want to hurl into the corridors of power. The more that the New York Times, MSNBC, and every other organ of the establishment decry Trump's lies and bigotry and clownish gaffes, the more he'll surge ahead in the polls. They don't get it. They haven't from the beginning, and the day of reckoning draws near.


Yes, Dr. Jill Stein is the antidote for this poisonous miasma of political insanity. And that is one reason Jill is not allowed in the debates...she makes too much sense and would bury the two chosen candidates.


Trump looked and sounded like he was on some kind of drug -- coke, amphetamines, something. He was a rude crude dude and seemed agitated, hyperactive. Just the kind of prez we need ...right? His hair is proof that he's a walking liar always looking for an edge, advantage even through a haircut ...although his is not really a cut, more of a borrow. He's the carnival barker in chief. Hell to the chief!


I tried listening to the post-event commentary on MSNBC, but obviously they had no interest in the debate that had just happened.......mainly they tried to fit Hillary's best zinger lines into their talking points. They also focused on Trump's body language, looking for signs of anger or duress.


I watched only as much as I could stomach, about a third of the "debate" and what I saw was Trump connecting on an emotional level while Clinton spewed facts and figures. Trump hammered away on how bad things are for the common folk and repeatedly nailed Clinton for having had "30 years .. ok only 26" to solve these problems but has only made them worse, and only now has decided she's the person to solve these problems. That connects. All her facts and figures mean nothing when you can't make a car payment etc, etc.

But, as others have pointed out, spewing facts and figures (and I have no idea how many of them were "correct") does connect with Hillary's followers.

In the segment I watched the moderator repeatedly interrupted Trump (or tried to!), and raised questions about what he said. But I didn't see him do that once with Clinton. The result was, to my mind and that of many others, that the debate was two against one. Clinton lovers loved it, as evidenced by the raucous crowd's reactions. But from my (I think) somewhat unbiased position (both candidates stink to high heaven in my opinion) it made Clinton look bad by protecting her.


If the commentators said Clinton clearly won (same thing they said during primary debates) then Trump really won.


A quick reality check: she's debating DONALD TRUMP! How could anybody lose that one. Yet some how she manages to make it a contest. The fact that we even have to discuss who won or lost makes us all losers in a very profound and sad way. And that's exactly how this sordid spectacle makes me feel: sad. Depressed even. How can you so consistently and constantly give credence to this farce?


Two scientific polls of people who watched the debate both showed Clinton with the advantage amongst independent voters. That data is more important to the horserace than what the pundits said or didn't say. Of course, the population of undecided voters amongst people who didn't watch is probably at least as large.

With Trump on the stage there is little hope that any ideas will be discussed. Things are interesting only in the same way as the HuffPost articles about whether Kim Kardashian will vote for Trump or Clinton (amazingly, they published three articles on the topic!). The debates between Clinton and Sanders were actually politically interesting - and I'd love to see a debate between Stein and Clinton or between Stein, Clinton, and Johnson. I wonder if the "bipartisan commission" would allow a slight amendment to their 15% rule so that anyone polling more than 15% of the Klan vote is not allowed on stage.


So you've decided to vote for Trump? Are you part of the show? I'm using a triage metaphor for my decision-making. I love the theatre but there's a time and place for everything. I take my citizenship in a democracy seriously yet enjoy going to watch clowns and carnie barkers...yay-ay-ay; and/or the corporate billionaire inheritors oligarchy...boo-o-o-o.

Stein/Baraka 2030 No Energy No Experience No Evidence No Imagination


Who cares which one of the two crooks won?

Vote for quality and integrity, vote for Jill Stein!


Bildebergers is where they put little outfits on tiny bears, right? :wink:


I only watched about 30 minutes of the debate. But the WTF moment was when Trump was answering a question about Hillary’s hacked emails, and said it could have been anybody…China, Russia, some other country…or a 400 lb kid/hacker sitting on their bed. : )


At least ONE humorous point in this yucky stream, coming off last night's monstrosity!


I guess you are one of those Jill Stein shills. How is she paying these days? According to the CNN poll, Clinton won by 62-27. In the PPP poll she won by 51-40. I guess Clinton was the winner with the people after all, college degrees or not. If Jill is paying more than Hillary maybe it pays to switch.


Haha. I like you better since you started fighting back.