My overall initial thought is that Trump started stronger, but Hillary was more consistent through the night. I think the idea that Trump can't be President because he's too easy to provoke took a hit. For a golf analogy, Trump went for the birdie and got the bogey, while Hillary laid up and got par. Don't usually use golf analogies, but that's pretty much the tightest summation of how I'd describe their overall philosophy and the last night's results.
On moderation, I was both impressed and disappointed. I was impressed that Lester restrained himself as much as he did, he played it old school media style and revealed his bias only to those who pay attention. That said, I think we need to end the era of single moderators if we're going to have to suffer through deliberate spin in the questions and false fact checking. I counted at least 3 questions that could have been written by Clinton staffers (Trump taxes, Birther Question, not looking Presidential) on a night when he didn't ask any reciprocal questions to Clinton, and in fact avoided her most controversial topics. That's the bias by selection of coverage that the media classically perpetrated so they could deny there was a bias. But he also took it a step further, with overstated claims - for example, phrasing the question by calling it a lie that Obama wasn't born in the US. It's a fact one way or the other, and virtually no one has knowledge of its truth, we just have evidence on the topic. And he made incredibly misleading "fact claims" on stop and frisk, where stop and frisk is Constitutional, even if there are implementations that are not (whether NY's was, is itself up for debate with De Blaisio controversial decision to drop the appeal that the city likely would have won for his own political reasons). Most viewers are not in a position where they are going to understand the nuance on these things so Holt's phrasing rises, in my view, to the level of abuse of trust.
Here were my thoughts during the debate. I posted them on facebook, but since we don't have a debate thread yet, I figured this was a good way to start one.
Stop and frisk is such a BS policy. Authoritarian BS.
Well it depends on the implementation. I'm baffled though, what you think should be done in an area where criminal shootings are happening several times a day, if not to have the police get more involved? I think people get one idea in their head, ie that white cops are frisking the only black kids in a shopping mall. When the reality is cops familiar with a neighborhood where they work everyday being proactive in areas that have well above average crime.
Do we want safer neighborhoods? If so, the police have to be proactive. Granted, we do not accept them being racist in pursuit of those goals.
Ugh, the no-fly list is also authorization bull*censored*. Hillary's advocation for expanding the consequences of that list makes me sad.
All candidates are disappointments on this unconstitutional policy. I chalk it up to knowing that taking the correct position turns into a sound bite, "blank wants to give terrorists guns."
Not sure if I like the moderator getting in there as a fact checker.
If they would limit themselves to facts, rather than opinions as facts it might be a different story. But jumping in to back a misleading statistic, which is what they want to do, is almost criminal.
<characterizing trump>Guys, if you want the truth about what I said (despite the video that shows otherwise) go ask Sean Hannity, the biggest Republican shill aside from perhaps Limbaugh.
Not sure why this is such a big issue. I mean people have let Hillary back off on supporting the Iraq War after she voted to authorize it, but somehow Trump was a supporter because of an offhand comment to Howard Stern that seems to be inconsistent with everything else he said on the war, including real time? Where's the sense in that? I find this one to be a ridiculous issue, particularly after the explanation has been given, only propagated because the Clinton campaign wants it repeated.
I really thought some of Trump's best moments, were when he was pointing out that this Administration has doubled our debt and yet our infrastructure is still degrading. Pointing out that so much of government policies on spending are wasteful, though I would have taken it further and stated that they are designed to buy voters and pay back "friends."
At this point, I think the release of taxes is a joke. Even if they were perfect, with no flaws showing what he wants, they would still do nothing but hurt him after release. I wouldn't release them if I were him. Why won't you release them? Because there's no way the media won't spend weeks taking them completely out of context to hurt his campaign, they do it with every line out of his mouth, on what earth would they not do it with hundreds of pages of tax disclosures?
