1st Presidential Debate (2016) thread

[collinsmark]

Tonight (as of the time of this post) is the first televised presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

Moderator: Lester Holt, Anchor, NBC Nightly News
Location: Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY

The first debate will be divided into six time segments of approximately 15 minutes each on major topics to be selected by the moderator and announced at least one week before the debate. The moderator will open each segment with a question, after which each candidate will have two minutes to respond. Candidates will then have an opportunity to respond to each other. The moderator will use the balance of the time in the segment for a deeper discussion of the topic.​

Try to keep comments at least somehow related to this particular debate.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Getting my popcorn ready!

 

[kyphysics]

Getting my popcorn ready!

YUP!

treating this like the Super Bowl!

 

[kyphysics]

Who thinks Trump goes insane/childish vs. scholarly/intellectual tonight?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I hope we hear a couple of these

 

[collinsmark]

I like to keep a pile of balled up socks handy for these occasions so that I always have a projectile within reach to hurl at the TV screen whenever a candidate says something outlandish.

 

[RodP]

Who else thinks this debate is a joke?

Hilary`s comeback was official. Book sales to dumb people...up, up and away lol

 

[Evo]

Who else thinks this debate is a joke?

Hilary`s comeback was official. Book sales to dumb people...up, up and away lol

Trump is in it, how could it not be a joke?

 

[collinsmark]

I ran out of socks already.

 

[Evo]

OMG, now he's calling the moderator a liar when the moderator has the stuff right in front of him

DELUSIONAL

 

[Isaac0427]

Getting my popcorn ready!

Me too! What did you all think?

 

[Evo]

I think Trump showed his true colors.

It's just so scary that there are so many clueless Americans that do not get how dangerous this is.

They seem to think it's some kind of joke to just shake things up and do not have the mental capacity to see how serious this really is.

 

[Isaac0427]

OMG, now he's calling the moderator a liar when the moderator has the stuff right in front of him

DELUSIONAL

He also claimed he has a better temperament than Clinton.I swear, every time he said something I agreed with, he followed it with something crazy, such as "we should have taken all of the oil," which violates international law. Oops.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Me too! What did you all think?

Felt like entertainment and that isn't a good thing.

 

[StevieTNZ]

Liked what he said to Hillary, "excuse me", when he was talking and Hillary tried to get a word in. Then multiple moments where Hillary is talking and he starts talking over the top of her. Go Trump...

What else? Oh, not shutting up when time is up. And at the end Trump was rattling on about something, the moderator was saying he needed to move to the final question, gave Trump 10 secs to finish, but he went way above that. I was literally 'just mute his microphone!'

 

[gfd43tg]

I think Hillary won the debate (I know it's subjective). I'm not a supporter of her but she did a good job keeping cool and responded well to most accusations. Donald had some pretty funny comments though. Not sure if we should weigh that much on rhetoric during debates though, since what happens once the candidate is not running is way different from the debate and campaign rhetoric.

 

[rootone]

Ha Ha Ha.
Trump at around 24m.

"I'm a great believer in all forms of energy"

 

[micromass]

I feel really sorry for America. Yeah yeah, Hillary came of as the more rational person. But I think she did horrible. She made the debate around Trump. She hardly had a message of her own. She's uninspiring. The only message she has is "Oh look, Trump is much worse than me". And yeah, he is much worse than her. But if that is your main message (and face it, it was), then America has a real problem. I hope she can get enough people to go out and vote for her, since I would definitely not bother with the message she's been bringing.

It's clear who lost: America.

 

[olivermsun]

I feel really sorry for America. Yeah yeah, Hillary came of as the more rational person. But I think she did horrible. She made the debate around Trump. She hardly had a message of her own. She's uninspiring. The only message she has is "Oh look, Trump is much worse than me". And yeah, he is much worse than her. But if that is your main message (and face it, it was), then America has a real problem. I hope she can get enough people to go out and vote for her, since I would definitely not bother with the message she's been bringing.

Would it be more inspirational if she argued that we need to tear down the whole edifice?

 

[micromass]

Would it be more inspirational if she argued that we need to tear down the whole edifice?

The only positive thing that she has is that she's not Trump. And she completely goes with that strategy. Anything would be more inspirational than that. Anything.

 

[olivermsun]

The only positive thing that she has is that she's not Trump. And she completely goes with that strategy. Anything would be more inspirational than that. Anything.

Is the president's job to "inspire" or to keep a steady hand on the helm?

 

[micromass]

Is the president's job to "inspire" or to keep a steady hand on the helm?

Both.

 

[rootone]

Yeah, maybe Hillary can occupy half of the White house, and Don gets the other half.
It's big enough.

 

[micromass]

Yeah, maybe Hillary can occupy half of the White house, and Don gets the other half.
It's big enough.

Or you guys can quit this silly notion of a two party system...

 

[Evo]

I feel really sorry for America. Yeah yeah, Hillary came of as the more rational person. But I think she did horrible. She made the debate around Trump. She hardly had a message of her own. She's uninspiring. The only message she has is "Oh look, Trump is much worse than me". And yeah, he is much worse than her. But if that is your main message (and face it, it was), then America has a real problem. I hope she can get enough people to go out and vote for her, since I would definitely not bother with the message she's been bringing.

It's clear who lost: America.

We have to deal with the hand we've been dealt, one seemingly crazy, one capable, but not well liked. So I will vote for the one not seemingly crazy

 

[micromass]

We have to deal with the hand we've been dealt

Yep, this accurately describes the problem with American politics. You can have two awful insane candidates and you'll still vote for one of them.

 

[rootone]

There are third party choices in some states, but those don't seem very sane either.
There is an anti-science candidate and a borderline anarchist available.

 

[micromass]

There are third party choices in some states,

Irrelevant. Media ignores them anyway. And if any good third party rises and gets enough votes, then it means that no candidate scores more than 50% of the electoral college, then the House of Representatives chooses the president. What a crazy system, it encourages a two party system very heavily.

 

[olivermsun]

Or you guys can quit this silly notion of a two party system...

There are pros and cons. On the pro side we only have to judge relative craziness along a continuum of two.

 

[micromass]

There are pros and cons. On the pro side we only have to judge relative craziness along a continuum of two.

Yeah, if that's your main measure of this election (and it is!), then that shows the problem quite accurately.

 

[olivermsun]

Yeah, if that's your main measure of this election (and it is!), then that shows the problem quite accurately.

I think you're missing the point. With multiple parties there are more choices along the crazy continuum, that doesn't mean any of them aren't crazy.

Is there some country that you would hold up as a particularly good example of sanity?

 

[rootone]

"Of course I'm mad, we're all mad"
(Dark side of the moon)

 

[russ_watters]

Is the president's job to "inspire"...?

No, it's a candidate's job to inspire.

 

[russ_watters]

Or you guys can quit this silly notion of a two party system...

One thing that helps perpetuate it is the commission for debates:
http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=overview

By rule, a candidate must have 15% of the vote in an average poll in order to be included. 10% may not seem like much, but in a 3-horse race where 20% say "undecided" it is pretty big. If a 3rd party candidate were allowed in, that would raise their stature and swing votes in their direction. Naturally, the creators of the debate commission -- the two main parties -- would like to avoid that, and designed the rules to their favor.

Irrelevant. Media ignores them anyway. And if any good third party rises and gets enough votes, then it means that no candidate scores more than 50% of the electoral college, then the House of Representatives chooses the president.

That would be more difficult than it seems. Most states choose electors by a winner-take-all plurality, so it would take a very even 3-party race to have an election go to the House. Any combination of 2 candidates significantly ahead of a third nationally results in the 3rd candidate getting zero electors. See Ross Perot in 1992 when he got 19% of the popular vote and zero electors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992

 

[russ_watters]

There are third party choices in some states...

Gary Johnson is on the ballot in *every* state.