drsmooth wrote:

PSUPhilliesPhan wrote:There is one unintended consequence of the debate that I worry about. My mother-in-law and wife's bestie both lost their marbles seeing Hillary up there. Both are lifelong Berks County conservatives but socially liberal and very good people. The problem is they just HATE the Clintons. It's in the water there as I'm sure Pacino and company can attest to. They won't under any circumstances vote for Hillary even knowing Trump is the devil. Both just aren't going to vote.

How is their presumably years-in-the-making dislike of the Clintons affected by the debate? Where is the "unintended consequence" - that HRC mopped the floor with their only POTUS option, so they're not going to the polls at all? They DO know other politicians are running for offices other than POTUS, correct?

CalvinBall wrote:Trump riffing on Clintons health again. Seems to be going off the rails again with the doubling down on the fat comments yesterday and now another weird day.

jerseyhoya wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:Trump riffing on Clintons health again. Seems to be going off the rails again with the doubling down on the fat comments yesterday and now another weird day.

It all reignited with him voluntarily bringing up the birther issue. He can only keep it together for so long. He sees he's doing well in the polls and getting close to Hillary, decides he doesn't need to listen to these negative people telling him to 'behave', says crazy shit, drops in the polls, people start leaking like crazy, he fires people, he 'behaves' for a little while, gets close to Hillary, decides he doesn't need to listen to these negative people telling him to 'behave', etc.

logos wrote:They're conservatives. If they don't want to vote, why, that's kinda OK, isn't it?

Bucky wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:That family is in serious need of some non-blueblood blood. The next to breed should have to do so with a commoner to make sure the next Trump generation isn't completely insane hemophiliacs.

they should make a pact like hitler's kids

Monkeyboy wrote:

Bucky wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:That family is in serious need of some non-blueblood blood. The next to breed should have to do so with a commoner to make sure the next Trump generation isn't completely insane hemophiliacs.

they should make a pact like hitler's kids

I'm afraid to google that

drsmooth wrote:

logos wrote:They're conservatives. If they don't want to vote, why, that's kinda OK, isn't it?

Of course. He alluded to an unintended consequence of the debates. What that consequence was, let alone why 'unintended', is not obvious. I'm guessing you probably missed that part.

pacino wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

logos wrote:They're conservatives. If they don't want to vote, why, that's kinda OK, isn't it?

Of course. He alluded to an unintended consequence of the debates. What that consequence was, let alone why 'unintended', is not obvious. I'm guessing you probably missed that part.

No downballot votes

Bucky wrote:

pacino wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

logos wrote:They're conservatives. If they don't want to vote, why, that's kinda OK, isn't it?

Of course. He alluded to an unintended consequence of the debates. What that consequence was, let alone why 'unintended', is not obvious. I'm guessing you probably missed that part.

No downballot votes

no, i'm guessing that HRC so incensed them that they may consider changing their mind and vote for idiotman anyway

drsmooth wrote:

logos wrote:They're conservatives. If they don't want to vote, why, that's kinda OK, isn't it?

Of course. He alluded to an unintended consequence of the debates. What that consequence was, let alone why 'unintended', is not obvious. I'm guessing you probably missed that part.

pacino wrote:

Bucky wrote:

pacino wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

logos wrote:They're conservatives. If they don't want to vote, why, that's kinda OK, isn't it?

Of course. He alluded to an unintended consequence of the debates. What that consequence was, let alone why 'unintended', is not obvious. I'm guessing you probably missed that part.

No downballot votes

no, i'm guessing that HRC so incensed them that they may consider changing their mind and vote for idiotman anyway

Then they weren't actually voting for her anyway. The conversion rate from R to Clinton is very small.

PSUPhilliesPhan wrote: Two normal people I know were going to vote for her (because of how much Trump scares them) but changed their mind watching the debate.

JUburton wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I have a #take on these fake Internet polls that show Trump winning that he's touting, getting people upset due to spreading misinformation - I think it's fantastic. Trump seems to search for any sort of validation, and grabs onto it for dear life. He has surrounded himself with sycophants who are desperate to keep him happy at the expense of telling him news he should hear. He is probably dumb enough not to really know the difference between the CNN poll and the Drudge poll. He is so #$!&@ lazy and incurious that he will take any excuse possible to have the same level of limited to no preparation for the next debate - after all, it worked this time! He is so insulated in his only going on FOX shows and even then only going on the 2-3 that are still consistently nice to him that an outside bursting of this bubble seems unlikely. And so he will go into the next debate as outgunned as he was yesterday.

I totally agree with all of this. I was worried that his performance would be seen as so bad that he'd actually work for the next one--much like his campaign was such a trainwreck after the RNC that he actually listened to his professional advisers for a while.

I think you're right that we'll see basically the same Trump next time around.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/us/po ... .html?_r=1

Maybe not. Who knows. I think he'd do better in a town hall but I'm not certain.

MoBettle wrote:

JUburton wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I have a #take on these fake Internet polls that show Trump winning that he's touting, getting people upset due to spreading misinformation - I think it's fantastic. Trump seems to search for any sort of validation, and grabs onto it for dear life. He has surrounded himself with sycophants who are desperate to keep him happy at the expense of telling him news he should hear. He is probably dumb enough not to really know the difference between the CNN poll and the Drudge poll. He is so #$!&@ lazy and incurious that he will take any excuse possible to have the same level of limited to no preparation for the next debate - after all, it worked this time! He is so insulated in his only going on FOX shows and even then only going on the 2-3 that are still consistently nice to him that an outside bursting of this bubble seems unlikely. And so he will go into the next debate as outgunned as he was yesterday.

I totally agree with all of this. I was worried that his performance would be seen as so bad that he'd actually work for the next one--much like his campaign was such a trainwreck after the RNC that he actually listened to his professional advisers for a while.

I think you're right that we'll see basically the same Trump next time around.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/us/po ... .html?_r=1

Maybe not. Who knows. I think he'd do better in a town hall but I'm not certain.

IDK what if they make him talk to a black person