Presidential Race 2016

No do over, but we desperately need, at the very least, a viable third party, preferably more. The two major parties have basically forfeited their right to govern, in my humble opinion. But they've stacked the deck so heavily in their favor, it's difficult, if not impossible, to dislodge them. And, eventually, this is what we get.

 

Take off your left-wing, rose colored glasses. Both of these candiates are highly flawed and I don't need the mainstream news outlets to reach that conclusion.

I'm with Heather on wanting a do over. I'm sincerely surprised that a stronger third-party candidate didn't emerge in this election. These two make long for Ross Perot.

 

Don, they may not be equally flawed, but they're both too flawed for me. I didn't in one case (and wouldn't have in the other) vote for either nominee.

I disagree that you need to scrap the 2 party system, per se. If you advance the top 3 from each primary to the final election, you'd probably generate enough diversity of candidates. Even top 2 on either side would be an improvement.

Hopefully this clown show of an election will make us realize we need to tweak the system. Fortunately, it's pretty hard for anyone to screw up the country too much in 4 years & neither of these two should have much chance of 2 terms unless they pleasantly surprise.

 

Yes. Just because a candidate can win their party doesn't mean they're the best candidate for the general election. Plus it would protect from the extremes of either party dominating an election cycle. I fail to see how a deeper candidate field hurts in the general election. If we could actually launch additional parties, I'd have suggested that. But the 2 dinosaurs have a stranglehold on the process, so it would be more expedient to just open it up the way I suggested.

 

Trying to remember the last time I watched a Presidential 'debate'. I'm guessing it was 20 years ago, just got fed up with politicians never answering a freaking question. Now I don't expect either one of these two to answer one either, but on pure craziness this should be entertaining.

 

I watched most of it. Don't think it changed anyone's mind, nor did it make anyone's mind up. They seldom do. These debates are mine fields that the candidates must cross without setting one off. Both made it through. There was no sweating, 5 o'clock shadow Nixon, no Gerald Ford foreign policy blunder, no Bush checking his watch. One down, two to go.

 

Like Jump I watched or listened to most of it. There was a lot of mudslinging and Twitter worthy one-liners but very little substance from either candidate that would make an undecided voter take notice. As someone who was honestly looking for policy and substance from either candidate I found the evening very frustrating. I would have loved to of heard anything with regard to:

1. Tax policy
2. Fixing Obamacare so that companies who have traditionally offered healthcare will stop dropping it like the proverbial hot potato. In particular, I would love for the candidates to address the Cadillac tax that is going to impact far more companies that it was supposed to.
3. Balancing a budget (God forbid that anyone broach that massively important subject)
4. More in regard to foreign policy other than name calling.

All I want is a responsible debate and not a six year old birthday party popularity contest. I have very little hope that I will see that happen.

 

Thought it'd be more entertaining, but it was pretty standard faire for a debate, and not sure how much of the next one I'll watch. If I'd have to declare a winner, would give it to Clinton. Not that she was great (plenty of openings she didn't exploit), but the Donald falling into the trap of saying not paying taxes, declaring bankruptcies, and bullying small companies out of paying for services as acts of a 'good businessman'. The biggest laugh of all was referring to his achievements in race relations as not discriminating against blacks or muslims in the 'tough community' of Palm Beach by accepting members at his country club...

 

Full disclosure, I despise Trump, but promised myself 14 years ago I'd never vote for Clinton - so that's my bias.

I watched the whole thing and I'd have to give the win to Clinton. Anyone who was already in one camp or the other heard what they wanted to hear and wouldn't have changed anything. I think that for Clinton to win she had to remind people who don't want to vote for either candidate why Trump is unqualified and make herself seem like a reasonable option. I think she checked both those boxes.

I was surprised that she continually allowed him to interrupt her, but those ended up being his absolute worst, most offensive, moments. I wonder if the Clinton camp anticipated that. He also continued to be flat our wrong or lie regarding easily verifiable facts, while Clinton's biggest lie of the night (that she didn't object to TPP for only political reasons) could charitably be written off as stretching the truth.

Lester Holt delivered harder questions to Trump than he did to Clinton. For example, he began one question with the premise that Trump supported the war in Iraq. This led to a terse exchange between Trump and Holt. There was no corresponding question for Clinton. When the email server was brought up, Holt simply said to Clinton "would you like to address that?" or something to that effect rather than something like "Since you put your own privacy above the nation's secrets, why should we trust you to be Commander in Chief?" I think Trump deserved the questions he got, but there was nothing equivalent for Clinton.

Trump failed to bring up things that are either weak spots for Clinton or red meat for Republicans. No mention of "basket of deplorables", I don't remember a mention of Benghazi from Trump (Clinton mentioned it), nothing about Obamacare. The best parts from Trump came when he criticized Clinton and Obama for allowing the rise of ISIS - however even then when Clinton came back with a thoughtful response that attack fizzled (also because Holt changed the subject). Trump couldn't even grab the low-hanging fruit in the debate. Then there was his ridiculous, third-grade-esque, finish where he said there were some mean things he could have said that he didn't.

He's certainly not fair and balanced, but I liked Seth Meyers summary:

 

I didn't get to see much (it was my bath and bedtime night with the kid), but I got a big kick out of the exchange where Trump interrupted Clinton to deny his saying that global warming is a hoax created by the Chinese. But...




Also, where is the mute button. I kept waiting for Holt to pull from the ESPN show Around the Horn and mute the two of them so he could move on. Time's up!

 

One thing's for sure: "America's Mayor" has gone off the reservation. After saying there had been no successful Islamic terrorist attacks in the country before Obama became president, to saying Hillary is too stupid to be president, to this, I'm wondering what happened to the decent guy that led with such thoughtfulness and compassion in the 9/11 aftermath.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/giuliani-trump-debates-228756

 

James, I have been thinking the same thing about Rudy, he will forever have my respect about the way he handled himself that September day and beyond, but what was he promised by Trump to act like he has? Thought initially right afterwards that Clinton won the debate, but not by a huge margin. It has became obvious the next 24-48 hours in retrospect that she put a whooping' on him, but most of it was his own doing. How did you know when your guy did poorly and you thought he lost? When ol' Rudy started crying about the moderator (Lester Holt sure was tough on him..) the second the debate was over. Perhaps Mr. Mayor, if The Donald actually answered the softballs Holt was throwing up there smartly instead of being well..The Donald you'd be singing a different tune.