2016 Presidential Race

[Tom B.]

I generally like the gambling markets as I think people tend to make monetary bets with their head, not their heart. I trust the head more than the heart. But, if the betting markets were moving to Hillary early in the debate, it really makes me wonder what they were watching. At worst, Trump was in a dead heat with Hillary over the first 15 or so minutes of the debate. He didn't get killed until the middle and back half.

For whatever it's worth, Hillary has gone from 69% on Predictwise immediately before the debate to 74% now. She quickly jumped up to 73% within an hour or two after the debate ended, and has gone up another point since then.

Her peak in this election cycle so far has been 81%, which she hit during her post-convention bounce.

[dudog84]

From rthomas post: "On both Twitter and Facebook, Trump was a livelier subject than Clinton. Twitter said the "final share of conversation around the candidates on stage" was 62% for Trump and 38% for Clinton. On Facebook, the results were even more lopsided, with Trump earning 79% share of conversation and Clinton having the remaining 21%."

Not sure if that is good or bad for Trump. He might have dominated the "conversation", but it may have been ridiculing him. Is there anything anywhere on the substance of the conversation, or do we just have raw numbers?

[Jeffrey]

If you don't believe the policy positions the candidates have presented online or in a debate, then it seems to me you aren't going to have any information with which to determine who the best candidate is. And that isn't a "this year only" issue - it's true of every election ever.

You talk about trying to decide whether 4 years of Trump is better or worse than 8 years of Clinton. But ultimately if you don't believe the candidates are presenting what they plan to do then how on earth would you be able to determine the answer to your question?

This is why I prefer spending a relatively short amount of time watching the debates instead of reading position papers. We all have tells. Body language, facial expressions, passion, emphasis, etc., tell a story the position papers do not.

Do you truly believe everything the candidates stated last night?

[rthomas]

Do you truly believe everything the candidates stated last night?

Politifact answers your question with a resounding No.

14449879_10154497507633433_2740679282841959033_n.jpg

Edit: Politifact fact-checked Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton nearly 400 times combined since they announced their candidacies for president. See their records on PolitiFact's Truth-O-Meter below.

[CDu]

This is why I prefer spending a relatively short amount of time watching the debates instead of reading position papers. We all have tells. Body language, facial expressions, passion, emphasis, etc., tell a story the position papers do not.

Do you truly believe everything the candidates stated last night?

I never said I believe everything the candidates said. I am sure that they aren't saying exactly what they believe. I'm saying that there is no way you can know what they plan to do from the debates. You are MUCH more likely to get close to an understanding of what they plan to do from their policy statements online than you are from watching the debates, since they don't say anything substantive policy-wise based on the debates.

In other words, if you are going to consider policy plans in your selection of a candidate, you probably shouldn't rely on the debates to inform your decision. Unless you just plan on making an uninformed/poorly-informed decision.

[Nick]

Jason "lots of folks are trying to see what they want from last night - the truth is probably in the middle" Evans

This is a pretty good summary of the entire internet today.

[77devil]

Lawn Sign.jpg

Self explanatory

[Jeffrey]

I never said I believe everything the candidates said. I am sure that they aren't saying exactly what they believe. I'm saying that there is no way you can know what they plan to do from the debates. You are MUCH more likely to get close to an understanding of what they plan to do from their policy statements online than you are from watching the debates, since they don't say anything substantive policy-wise based on the debates.

In other words, if you are going to consider policy plans in your selection of a candidate, you probably shouldn't rely on the debates to inform your decision. Unless you just plan on making an uninformed/poorly-informed decision.

Have you spent considerable time analyzing their policy statements, which you feel so strongly about? If so, how much time have you spent and what great truths have they revealed?

[CDu]

Have you spent considerable time analyzing their policy statements, which you feel so strongly about? If so, how much time have you spent and what great truths have they revealed?

I have not. Nor do I need to. I am not an undecided. I have sufficient information about each candidate for me to make my decision, and have had that for months now. For me, it is not a difficult decision. I understand that for some others this is not the case.

And I am not saying that you (or anyone) HAVE to do that research. Obe can do whatever one wants. I am saying that if the information we have about the two candidates to date isn't sufficient, and you want to base your decision upon what policies each supports, then a debate isn't going to give you the information you need. Debates simply aren't designed to do that. People mistakenly think they can, but the format of debates really isn't set up to do that. So if a person is relying on the debates to understand a candidate's policy positions, and relying on that to make a decision, then that person is setting him/herself up to have an ill-informed decision.

[JasonEvans]

Politifact answers your question with a resounding No.

14449879_10154497507633433_2740679282841959033_n.jpg

Edit: Politifact fact-checked Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton nearly 400 times combined since they announced their candidacies for president. See their records on PolitiFact's Truth-O-Meter below.

Can you provide a link to where that graph came from? It is not readable in its current size.

[gurufrisbee]

http://www.azcentral.com/story/opini...ment/91198668/

I don't know how much newspaper endorsements mean to any voters, but the historic difference of this paper's endorsement history is interesting at least.

I don't know where that bar graph is from, but I saw this recap of the debate from Politifact:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...e-fact-checks/

[YmoBeThere]

http://www.azcentral.com/story/opini...ment/91198668/

I don't know how much newspaper endorsements mean to any voters, but the historic difference of this paper's endorsement history is interesting at least.

I don't know where that bar graph is from, but I saw this recap of the debate from Politifact:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...e-fact-checks/

This is not the Arizona Republic i knew in my youth.

[CameronBlue]

As a Wells Fargo customer and shareholder, I'm disgusted by the cross-selling scandal which has forced me to pull my credit history to make sure I wasn't defrauded by my own bank. I'd like to see the scandal become a campaign issue to provide Hillary and DT the opportunity to clarify their relationships with the banking industry. Here's Elizabeth Warren "questioning" John Stumpf, CEO & COB of WF during a Senate Banking Committee hearing in case you missed it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJhkX74D10M

[bedeviled]

Bernie's going to hit the trail again. It will be interesting to see where his supporters are hanging out in the polls and if they'll migrate to the Clinton camp if not already there. He's headed to "Michigan and New Hampshire, and possible trips to Nevada, Pennsylvania, Colorado and Wisconsin. The Clinton camp even plans to deploy Sanders to Minnesota" (CNN).

So, if you don't have tickets to the local concert yet, better scoop them up - Bernie and Hillary on the same side, fighting against the tweets!:

(If, like me, your favorite part is Bill's cameo, you can check out the director's clip which lets him shine a bit longer).

Also of note, the creators of the embedded video has their Trump vs Clinton debate video uploaded. I didn't post it because I didn't think it was as special, but it does feature Blondie...not a song by Blondie, but the real Debbie Harry!

[gus]

Caution in reading the comments however...not a healthy exercise

Never read the comments.

[rthomas]

Can you provide a link to where that graph came from? It is not readable in its current size.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...016-president/

better?

[davekay1971]

Lawn Sign.jpg

Self explanatory

Evidently there was a significant spike in google searches for Gary Johnson during the debate, as well as a 26% increase in followers of his FB page. Will that translate into anything significant? Probably not, but it would be interesting to see if the debate between Trump and Clinton is actually followed by Johnson getting a bump in the polls. Would say a lot...

[BLPOG]

Evidently there was a significant spike in google searches for Gary Johnson during the debate, as well as a 26% increase in followers of his FB page. Will that translate into anything significant? Probably not, but it would be interesting to see if the debate between Trump and Clinton is actually followed by Johnson getting a bump in the polls. Would say a lot...

Maybe the post-debate polls should have included Johnson when asking "Who won the debate?"

[gus]

Evidently there was a significant spike in google searches for Gary Johnson during the debate, as well as a 26% increase in followers of his FB page. Will that translate into anything significant? Probably not, but it would be interesting to see if the debate between Trump and Clinton is actually followed by Johnson getting a bump in the polls. Would say a lot...

[PackMan97]

Maybe the post-debate polls should have included Johnson when asking "Who won the debate?"