Why do people say that Hillary won all three debates?

[Progressive Pessimist]

I actually think Trump won all 3 debates.

In Debate I Trump did enough to show he could hold his own in a debate with her. The bar was so low in the first debate for him that he exceeded expectations even if she technically may have done better on points.

Trump clearly won Debate II. Hillary had no rebuttal for the accusations about Bill and also she had weak answers about her server. Trump may have played to his base a lot in the debate but he still won the debate.

I think the third debate was actually Trump's weakest performance but that he still managed to win it because of the expectations game. Hillary never got a knockout punch against a candidate with 0 political experience in 3 debates and Trump held his own which is why he won similar to Bush vs. Gore in 2000 where Gore was much more well versed on policy matters.

The biggest mystery of the second debate was how the hell did Hillary expect to get away with using sexual morality as a campaign device? It was as if she totally forgot that her husband was at the front and center of the biggest sex scandal in American history. She probably would've had a better debate performance if she left the Access Hollywood tape alone. She gave Trump a perfect opening to call her out on hypocrisy, which gave him a clear win in the debate.

You clinging so hard to this suggests a lot of desperation on your part just so you can claim your cult leader as the victor in a debate that ultimately didn't matter.

[here2view]

I don't really care about what party-affiliated posters think about the debate, of course most Republicans are going to think Trump won and most Democrats will think Hillary won.

Most polls say that undecided voters thought Hillary won the debates, they matter more than party members. However, most undecided voters broke toward Trump for the election, which ultimately matters. Pretty simple analysis.

[IceSpear]

I don't really care about what party-affiliated posters think about the debate, of course most Republicans are going to think Trump won and most Democrats will think Hillary won.

Most polls say that undecided voters thought Hillary won the debates, they matter more than party members. However, most undecided voters broke toward Trump for the election, which ultimately matters. Pretty simple analysis.

Because Americans, especially "undecided voters", have the attention span of a schizophrenic drugged up goldfish.

[South Dakota Democrat]

I don't really care about what party-affiliated posters think about the debate, of course most Republicans are going to think Trump won and most Democrats will think Hillary won.

Most polls say that undecided voters thought Hillary won the debates, they matter more than party members. However, most undecided voters broke toward Trump for the election, which ultimately matters. Pretty simple analysis.

Because Americans, especially "undecided voters", have the attention span of a schizophrenic drugged up goldfish.

Word.  Whoever the focus was on in the last few days was always going to lose, since they were both so unpopular.  It ended up being Hillary's turn to be in the news those last few days, unfortunately.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Because the polls all overwhelmingly said she did. Even if they were significantly off, the margin was big enough that there's zero ambiguity.

The revisionist history here is getting insane.

Rhetorically speaking, she destroyed Trump. Clearly she had a firm grasp of policy and message, while Trump sniffed loudly while making third-grade-level retorts like "Wrong." and "You're the puppet."

But by a different metric, though, how much did Clinton's debate performances help or hinder her electoral chances? How were poll questions worded? "After this debate, are you more or less likely to vote for Clinton, more or less likely to vote for Trump?" Because that's what mattered.

[South Dakota Democrat]

Because the polls all overwhelmingly said she did. Even if they were significantly off, the margin was big enough that there's zero ambiguity.

The revisionist history here is getting insane.

Rhetorically speaking, she destroyed Trump. Clearly she had a firm grasp of policy and message, while Trump sniffed loudly while making third-grade-level retorts like "Wrong." and "You're the puppet."

But by a different metric, though, how much did Clinton's debate performances help or hinder her electoral chances? How were poll questions worded? "After this debate, are you more or less likely to vote for Clinton, more or less likely to vote for Trump?" Because that's what mattered.

The first debate definitely helped her in the polls, at the very least.  After the third debate she was in solid shape.  Ultimately the debates did nothing to help Trump's electoral chances.  What helped him in the end was the natural tightening of the race, combined with the Comey letter, also combined with the polls being slightly off.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Because the polls all overwhelmingly said she did. Even if they were significantly off, the margin was big enough that there's zero ambiguity.

The revisionist history here is getting insane.

Rhetorically speaking, she destroyed Trump. Clearly she had a firm grasp of policy and message, while Trump sniffed loudly while making third-grade-level retorts like "Wrong." and "You're the puppet."

But by a different metric, though, how much did Clinton's debate performances help or hinder her electoral chances? How were poll questions worded? "After this debate, are you more or less likely to vote for Clinton, more or less likely to vote for Trump?" Because that's what mattered.

The first debate definitely helped her in the polls, at the very least.  After the third debate she was in solid shape.  Ultimately the debates did nothing to help Trump's electoral chances.  What helped him in the end was the natural tightening of the race, combined with the Comey letter, also combined with the polls being slightly off.

I'm not sure the polls were slightly off as much as there was about a 2% swing toward Trump post-Comey, which too late to be reflected in polling. For the period of time they were taken, they probably were accurate.

No Comey letter, and we're probably going into Month 29 of an eight-justice SCOTUS and Month 14 of Clinton impeachment hearings.

[South Dakota Democrat]

Because the polls all overwhelmingly said she did. Even if they were significantly off, the margin was big enough that there's zero ambiguity.

The revisionist history here is getting insane.

Rhetorically speaking, she destroyed Trump. Clearly she had a firm grasp of policy and message, while Trump sniffed loudly while making third-grade-level retorts like "Wrong." and "You're the puppet."

But by a different metric, though, how much did Clinton's debate performances help or hinder her electoral chances? How were poll questions worded? "After this debate, are you more or less likely to vote for Clinton, more or less likely to vote for Trump?" Because that's what mattered.

The first debate definitely helped her in the polls, at the very least.  After the third debate she was in solid shape.  Ultimately the debates did nothing to help Trump's electoral chances.  What helped him in the end was the natural tightening of the race, combined with the Comey letter, also combined with the polls being slightly off.

I'm not sure the polls were slightly off as much as there was about a 2% swing toward Trump post-Comey, which too late to be reflected in polling. For the period of time they were taken, they probably were accurate.

No Comey letter, and we're probably going into Month 29 of an eight-justice SCOTUS and Month 14 of Clinton impeachment hearings.

Nationally, the polls were pretty accurate, but were wrong in certain states (such as Wisconsin).  That might have more to do with the fact that Wisconsin wasn't really considered a swing state and thus wasn't polled much, though.  They were also off in Ohio and Iowa, too, though, so I think polls generally overestimated Clinton in the midwest.  They were more accurate in other places, though - I think the polling average in FL had Trump ahead by about 0.2%, and the polls actually underestimated Clinton in NV (not surprising though, with polling in that state).

[SN2903]

Because the polls all overwhelmingly said she did. Even if they were significantly off, the margin was big enough that there's zero ambiguity.

The revisionist history here is getting insane.

The polls were way off base in 2016. Please. They had Trump only up 2-3 points in Ohio when he won by 9 or something like that. In Michigan they had a tightening but had her up 4-5 points and he won by .5 percent.


Rhetorically speaking, she destroyed Trump. Clearly she had a firm grasp of policy and message, while Trump sniffed loudly while making third-grade-level retorts like "Wrong." and "You're the puppet."

But by a different metric, though, how much did Clinton's debate performances help or hinder her electoral chances? How were poll questions worded? "After this debate, are you more or less likely to vote for Clinton, more or less likely to vote for Trump?" Because that's what mattered.

The first debate definitely helped her in the polls, at the very least.  After the third debate she was in solid shape.  Ultimately the debates did nothing to help Trump's electoral chances.  What helped him in the end was the natural tightening of the race, combined with the Comey letter, also combined with the polls being slightly off.

I'm not sure the polls were slightly off as much as there was about a 2% swing toward Trump post-Comey, which too late to be reflected in polling. For the period of time they were taken, they probably were accurate.

No Comey letter, and we're probably going into Month 29 of an eight-justice SCOTUS and Month 14 of Clinton impeachment hearings.

Nationally, the polls were pretty accurate, but were wrong in certain states (such as Wisconsin).  That might have more to do with the fact that Wisconsin wasn't really considered a swing state and thus wasn't polled much, though.  They were also off in Ohio and Iowa, too, though, so I think polls generally overestimated Clinton in the midwest.  They were more accurate in other places, though - I think the polling average in FL had Trump ahead by about 0.2%, and the polls actually underestimated Clinton in NV (not surprising though, with polling in that state).

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Because the polls all overwhelmingly said she did. Even if they were significantly off, the margin was big enough that there's zero ambiguity.

The revisionist history here is getting insane.

Rhetorically speaking, she destroyed Trump. Clearly she had a firm grasp of policy and message, while Trump sniffed loudly while making third-grade-level retorts like "Wrong." and "You're the puppet."

But by a different metric, though, how much did Clinton's debate performances help or hinder her electoral chances? How were poll questions worded? "After this debate, are you more or less likely to vote for Clinton, more or less likely to vote for Trump?" Because that's what mattered.

The first debate definitely helped her in the polls, at the very least.  After the third debate she was in solid shape.  Ultimately the debates did nothing to help Trump's electoral chances.  What helped him in the end was the natural tightening of the race, combined with the Comey letter, also combined with the polls being slightly off.

I'm not sure the polls were slightly off as much as there was about a 2% swing toward Trump post-Comey, which too late to be reflected in polling. For the period of time they were taken, they probably were accurate.

No Comey letter, and we're probably going into Month 29 of an eight-justice SCOTUS and Month 14 of Clinton impeachment hearings.

Nationally, the polls were pretty accurate, but were wrong in certain states (such as Wisconsin).  That might have more to do with the fact that Wisconsin wasn't really considered a swing state and thus wasn't polled much, though.  They were also off in Ohio and Iowa, too, though, so I think polls generally overestimated Clinton in the midwest.  They were more accurate in other places, though - I think the polling average in FL had Trump ahead by about 0.2%, and the polls actually underestimated Clinton in NV (not surprising though, with polling in that state).

The big miss was Wisconsin. I'm still scratching my head at how they could have gotten the state so, so wrong. MI and PA were the ones I was worried about. I never thought for a moment he would win Wisconsin.

I chalk it up to bad methodology and just enough swing at the very end.

[South Dakota Democrat]

Because the polls all overwhelmingly said she did. Even if they were significantly off, the margin was big enough that there's zero ambiguity.

The revisionist history here is getting insane.

Rhetorically speaking, she destroyed Trump. Clearly she had a firm grasp of policy and message, while Trump sniffed loudly while making third-grade-level retorts like "Wrong." and "You're the puppet."

But by a different metric, though, how much did Clinton's debate performances help or hinder her electoral chances? How were poll questions worded? "After this debate, are you more or less likely to vote for Clinton, more or less likely to vote for Trump?" Because that's what mattered.

The first debate definitely helped her in the polls, at the very least.  After the third debate she was in solid shape.  Ultimately the debates did nothing to help Trump's electoral chances.  What helped him in the end was the natural tightening of the race, combined with the Comey letter, also combined with the polls being slightly off.

I'm not sure the polls were slightly off as much as there was about a 2% swing toward Trump post-Comey, which too late to be reflected in polling. For the period of time they were taken, they probably were accurate.

No Comey letter, and we're probably going into Month 29 of an eight-justice SCOTUS and Month 14 of Clinton impeachment hearings.

Nationally, the polls were pretty accurate, but were wrong in certain states (such as Wisconsin).  That might have more to do with the fact that Wisconsin wasn't really considered a swing state and thus wasn't polled much, though.  They were also off in Ohio and Iowa, too, though, so I think polls generally overestimated Clinton in the midwest.  They were more accurate in other places, though - I think the polling average in FL had Trump ahead by about 0.2%, and the polls actually underestimated Clinton in NV (not surprising though, with polling in that state).

The big miss was Wisconsin. I'm still scratching my head at how they could have gotten the state so, so wrong. MI and PA were the ones I was worried about. I never thought for a moment he would win Wisconsin.

I chalk it up to bad methodology and just enough swing at the very end.

There's also some analysis that indicates that Hillary basically got the percentage she was polling at in Wisconsin, even if she was leading by 6-7% in the polls.  That analysis is flawed, though, in my view, because it then assumes that Trump got virtually all of the undecideds.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Because the polls all overwhelmingly said she did. Even if they were significantly off, the margin was big enough that there's zero ambiguity.

The revisionist history here is getting insane.

Rhetorically speaking, she destroyed Trump. Clearly she had a firm grasp of policy and message, while Trump sniffed loudly while making third-grade-level retorts like "Wrong." and "You're the puppet."

But by a different metric, though, how much did Clinton's debate performances help or hinder her electoral chances? How were poll questions worded? "After this debate, are you more or less likely to vote for Clinton, more or less likely to vote for Trump?" Because that's what mattered.

The first debate definitely helped her in the polls, at the very least.  After the third debate she was in solid shape.  Ultimately the debates did nothing to help Trump's electoral chances.  What helped him in the end was the natural tightening of the race, combined with the Comey letter, also combined with the polls being slightly off.

I'm not sure the polls were slightly off as much as there was about a 2% swing toward Trump post-Comey, which too late to be reflected in polling. For the period of time they were taken, they probably were accurate.

No Comey letter, and we're probably going into Month 29 of an eight-justice SCOTUS and Month 14 of Clinton impeachment hearings.

Nationally, the polls were pretty accurate, but were wrong in certain states (such as Wisconsin).  That might have more to do with the fact that Wisconsin wasn't really considered a swing state and thus wasn't polled much, though.  They were also off in Ohio and Iowa, too, though, so I think polls generally overestimated Clinton in the midwest.  They were more accurate in other places, though - I think the polling average in FL had Trump ahead by about 0.2%, and the polls actually underestimated Clinton in NV (not surprising though, with polling in that state).

The big miss was Wisconsin. I'm still scratching my head at how they could have gotten the state so, so wrong. MI and PA were the ones I was worried about. I never thought for a moment he would win Wisconsin.

I chalk it up to bad methodology and just enough swing at the very end.

There's also some analysis that indicates that Hillary basically got the percentage she was polling at in Wisconsin, even if she was leading by 6-7% in the polls.  That analysis is flawed, though, in my view, because it then assumes that Trump got virtually all of the undecideds.

It's also flawed IMO due to the fact that Trump did relatively poorly in GOP strongholds and didn't match Romney's raw vote count. Hardly syncs up with a "Republicans coming home" narrative.

How many moderate voters who were meh about Hillary - and assumed she would win the state - either stayed at home or voted Johnson?

[South Dakota Democrat]

Because the polls all overwhelmingly said she did. Even if they were significantly off, the margin was big enough that there's zero ambiguity.

The revisionist history here is getting insane.

Rhetorically speaking, she destroyed Trump. Clearly she had a firm grasp of policy and message, while Trump sniffed loudly while making third-grade-level retorts like "Wrong." and "You're the puppet."

But by a different metric, though, how much did Clinton's debate performances help or hinder her electoral chances? How were poll questions worded? "After this debate, are you more or less likely to vote for Clinton, more or less likely to vote for Trump?" Because that's what mattered.

The first debate definitely helped her in the polls, at the very least.  After the third debate she was in solid shape.  Ultimately the debates did nothing to help Trump's electoral chances.  What helped him in the end was the natural tightening of the race, combined with the Comey letter, also combined with the polls being slightly off.

I'm not sure the polls were slightly off as much as there was about a 2% swing toward Trump post-Comey, which too late to be reflected in polling. For the period of time they were taken, they probably were accurate.

No Comey letter, and we're probably going into Month 29 of an eight-justice SCOTUS and Month 14 of Clinton impeachment hearings.

Nationally, the polls were pretty accurate, but were wrong in certain states (such as Wisconsin).  That might have more to do with the fact that Wisconsin wasn't really considered a swing state and thus wasn't polled much, though.  They were also off in Ohio and Iowa, too, though, so I think polls generally overestimated Clinton in the midwest.  They were more accurate in other places, though - I think the polling average in FL had Trump ahead by about 0.2%, and the polls actually underestimated Clinton in NV (not surprising though, with polling in that state).

The big miss was Wisconsin. I'm still scratching my head at how they could have gotten the state so, so wrong. MI and PA were the ones I was worried about. I never thought for a moment he would win Wisconsin.

I chalk it up to bad methodology and just enough swing at the very end.

There's also some analysis that indicates that Hillary basically got the percentage she was polling at in Wisconsin, even if she was leading by 6-7% in the polls.  That analysis is flawed, though, in my view, because it then assumes that Trump got virtually all of the undecideds.

It's also flawed IMO due to the fact that Trump did relatively poorly in GOP strongholds and didn't match Romney's raw vote count. Hardly syncs up with a "Republicans coming home" narrative.

How many moderate voters who were meh about Hillary - and assumed she would win the state - either stayed at home or voted Johnson?

Probably quite a few, but I think that even more of it was the Dem base not turning out in Milwaukee and Madison.  Wisconsin and Michigan should have been more on their radar, especially after losing them to Sanders in the primary.  People who say that she lost because she ignored these states, however, fail to account for Pennsylvania, which they did target (by that I mean MI and WI alone weren't enough for her to win, she also needed PA). 

[twenty42]

Because the polls all overwhelmingly said she did. Even if they were significantly off, the margin was big enough that there's zero ambiguity.

The revisionist history here is getting insane.

Rhetorically speaking, she destroyed Trump. Clearly she had a firm grasp of policy and message, while Trump sniffed loudly while making third-grade-level retorts like "Wrong." and "You're the puppet."

But by a different metric, though, how much did Clinton's debate performances help or hinder her electoral chances? How were poll questions worded? "After this debate, are you more or less likely to vote for Clinton, more or less likely to vote for Trump?" Because that's what mattered.

The first debate definitely helped her in the polls, at the very least.  After the third debate she was in solid shape.  Ultimately the debates did nothing to help Trump's electoral chances.  What helped him in the end was the natural tightening of the race, combined with the Comey letter, also combined with the polls being slightly off.

I'm not sure the polls were slightly off as much as there was about a 2% swing toward Trump post-Comey, which too late to be reflected in polling. For the period of time they were taken, they probably were accurate.

No Comey letter, and we're probably going into Month 29 of an eight-justice SCOTUS and Month 14 of Clinton impeachment hearings.

Nationally, the polls were pretty accurate, but were wrong in certain states (such as Wisconsin).  That might have more to do with the fact that Wisconsin wasn't really considered a swing state and thus wasn't polled much, though.  They were also off in Ohio and Iowa, too, though, so I think polls generally overestimated Clinton in the midwest.  They were more accurate in other places, though - I think the polling average in FL had Trump ahead by about 0.2%, and the polls actually underestimated Clinton in NV (not surprising though, with polling in that state).

The big miss was Wisconsin. I'm still scratching my head at how they could have gotten the state so, so wrong. MI and PA were the ones I was worried about. I never thought for a moment he would win Wisconsin.

I chalk it up to bad methodology and just enough swing at the very end.

There's also some analysis that indicates that Hillary basically got the percentage she was polling at in Wisconsin, even if she was leading by 6-7% in the polls.  That analysis is flawed, though, in my view, because it then assumes that Trump got virtually all of the undecideds.

Why does it assume Trump got all undecideds? The final poling average in WI was 46.8 Clinton - 40.3 Trump - 12.9 Undecided/Third Party. The result ended up being 46.5 Clinton - 47.2 Trump - 6.3 Third Party. Doing the math here and allowing for margin of error, it would be reasonable to conclude that Trump won about 50-60% of undecideds, with the other 40-50% voting third party. Hillary's problem in WI is that she won virtually NO undecideds, which could have been a very different ballgame had she actually paid some attention to the state.

[South Dakota Democrat]

Because the polls all overwhelmingly said she did. Even if they were significantly off, the margin was big enough that there's zero ambiguity.

The revisionist history here is getting insane.

Rhetorically speaking, she destroyed Trump. Clearly she had a firm grasp of policy and message, while Trump sniffed loudly while making third-grade-level retorts like "Wrong." and "You're the puppet."

But by a different metric, though, how much did Clinton's debate performances help or hinder her electoral chances? How were poll questions worded? "After this debate, are you more or less likely to vote for Clinton, more or less likely to vote for Trump?" Because that's what mattered.

The first debate definitely helped her in the polls, at the very least.  After the third debate she was in solid shape.  Ultimately the debates did nothing to help Trump's electoral chances.  What helped him in the end was the natural tightening of the race, combined with the Comey letter, also combined with the polls being slightly off.

I'm not sure the polls were slightly off as much as there was about a 2% swing toward Trump post-Comey, which too late to be reflected in polling. For the period of time they were taken, they probably were accurate.

No Comey letter, and we're probably going into Month 29 of an eight-justice SCOTUS and Month 14 of Clinton impeachment hearings.

Nationally, the polls were pretty accurate, but were wrong in certain states (such as Wisconsin).  That might have more to do with the fact that Wisconsin wasn't really considered a swing state and thus wasn't polled much, though.  They were also off in Ohio and Iowa, too, though, so I think polls generally overestimated Clinton in the midwest.  They were more accurate in other places, though - I think the polling average in FL had Trump ahead by about 0.2%, and the polls actually underestimated Clinton in NV (not surprising though, with polling in that state).

The big miss was Wisconsin. I'm still scratching my head at how they could have gotten the state so, so wrong. MI and PA were the ones I was worried about. I never thought for a moment he would win Wisconsin.

I chalk it up to bad methodology and just enough swing at the very end.

There's also some analysis that indicates that Hillary basically got the percentage she was polling at in Wisconsin, even if she was leading by 6-7% in the polls.  That analysis is flawed, though, in my view, because it then assumes that Trump got virtually all of the undecideds.

Why does it assume Trump got all undecideds? The final poling average in WI was 46.8 Clinton - 40.3 Trump - 12.9 Undecided/Third Party. The result ended up being 46.5 Clinton - 47.2 Trump - 6.3 Third Party. Doing the math here and allowing for margin of error, it would be reasonable to conclude that Trump won about 50-60% of undecideds, with the other 40-50% voting third party. Hillary's problem in WI is that she won virtually NO undecideds, which could have been a very different ballgame had she actually paid some attention to the state.

You don't find it difficult to believe that Hillary got virtually no undecideds?  I think that's far fetched.

[twenty42]

Because the polls all overwhelmingly said she did. Even if they were significantly off, the margin was big enough that there's zero ambiguity.

The revisionist history here is getting insane.

Rhetorically speaking, she destroyed Trump. Clearly she had a firm grasp of policy and message, while Trump sniffed loudly while making third-grade-level retorts like "Wrong." and "You're the puppet."

But by a different metric, though, how much did Clinton's debate performances help or hinder her electoral chances? How were poll questions worded? "After this debate, are you more or less likely to vote for Clinton, more or less likely to vote for Trump?" Because that's what mattered.

The first debate definitely helped her in the polls, at the very least.  After the third debate she was in solid shape.  Ultimately the debates did nothing to help Trump's electoral chances.  What helped him in the end was the natural tightening of the race, combined with the Comey letter, also combined with the polls being slightly off.

I'm not sure the polls were slightly off as much as there was about a 2% swing toward Trump post-Comey, which too late to be reflected in polling. For the period of time they were taken, they probably were accurate.

No Comey letter, and we're probably going into Month 29 of an eight-justice SCOTUS and Month 14 of Clinton impeachment hearings.

Nationally, the polls were pretty accurate, but were wrong in certain states (such as Wisconsin).  That might have more to do with the fact that Wisconsin wasn't really considered a swing state and thus wasn't polled much, though.  They were also off in Ohio and Iowa, too, though, so I think polls generally overestimated Clinton in the midwest.  They were more accurate in other places, though - I think the polling average in FL had Trump ahead by about 0.2%, and the polls actually underestimated Clinton in NV (not surprising though, with polling in that state).

The big miss was Wisconsin. I'm still scratching my head at how they could have gotten the state so, so wrong. MI and PA were the ones I was worried about. I never thought for a moment he would win Wisconsin.

I chalk it up to bad methodology and just enough swing at the very end.

There's also some analysis that indicates that Hillary basically got the percentage she was polling at in Wisconsin, even if she was leading by 6-7% in the polls.  That analysis is flawed, though, in my view, because it then assumes that Trump got virtually all of the undecideds.

Why does it assume Trump got all undecideds? The final poling average in WI was 46.8 Clinton - 40.3 Trump - 12.9 Undecided/Third Party. The result ended up being 46.5 Clinton - 47.2 Trump - 6.3 Third Party. Doing the math here and allowing for margin of error, it would be reasonable to conclude that Trump won about 50-60% of undecideds, with the other 40-50% voting third party. Hillary's problem in WI is that she won virtually NO undecideds, which could have been a very different ballgame had she actually paid some attention to the state.

You don't find it difficult to believe that Hillary got virtually no undecideds?  I think that's far fetched.

I'm not saying she literally got zero, but I think undecideds may have gone something like 50% Trump - 40% Third Party - 10% Clinton. Totally ignoring a state with undecideds in the double digits (and that came within 0.4 points of voting R the last time Obama wasn't on the ballot) was an astronomically stupid move, regardless of what her "margin" was in the polls.

[eastowilko]

I think she did better in all three debates, but trump outperformed expectations in a few of them so I don't few them as outright wins. Because trump doing better than he was expected to was a win for him.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I think she did better in all three debates, but trump outperformed expectations in a few of them so I don't few them as outright wins. Because trump doing better than he was expected to was a win for him.

That was a massively low bar though. I remember Trump was actually leading Clinton in many polls back in early-mid September due to the Clinton Foundation being in the news. This led to a lot of pressure being put on her to perform well in the debate. I remember being borderline nauseous over how nervous I was that she would perform badly. Then the debate starts and from the second Trump starts talking, I knew Clinton had it. His first debate was his worst by far, and he squandered an opportunity to salt Clinton's wounds (wining a debate only would have benefited him, because as we've seen, they didn't matter for Clinton in the end). But the two following debates where he sniffed less and formed more coherent sentences, were hardly improvements. They were just part of the low standards that the world has set for Donald Trump. It is those standards that he consistently coasts on, and we need to stop enabling them.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I don't really care about what party-affiliated posters think about the debate, of course most Republicans are going to think Trump won and most Democrats will think Hillary won.

Most polls say that undecided voters thought Hillary won the debates, they matter more than party members. However, most undecided voters broke toward Trump for the election, which ultimately matters. Pretty simple analysis.

Because Americans, especially "undecided voters", have the attention span of a schizophrenic drugged up goldfish.

Actually, no Romney lost because of the perception the Obama team put out until September of that year.


I would actually say if the campaign season was only in October  , Romney wins  by a narrow margin

[IceSpear]

I don't really care about what party-affiliated posters think about the debate, of course most Republicans are going to think Trump won and most Democrats will think Hillary won.

Most polls say that undecided voters thought Hillary won the debates, they matter more than party members. However, most undecided voters broke toward Trump for the election, which ultimately matters. Pretty simple analysis.

Because Americans, especially "undecided voters", have the attention span of a schizophrenic drugged up goldfish.

Actually, no Romney lost because of the perception the Obama team put out until September of that year.


I would actually say if the campaign season was only in October  , Romney wins  by a narrow margin

There's no evidence for this. If that was the case, Romney wouldn't have surged after the first debate.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I don't really care about what party-affiliated posters think about the debate, of course most Republicans are going to think Trump won and most Democrats will think Hillary won.

Most polls say that undecided voters thought Hillary won the debates, they matter more than party members. However, most undecided voters broke toward Trump for the election, which ultimately matters. Pretty simple analysis.

Because Americans, especially "undecided voters", have the attention span of a schizophrenic drugged up goldfish.

Actually, no Romney lost because of the perception the Obama team put out until September of that year.


I would actually say if the campaign season was only in October  , Romney wins  by a narrow margin

There's no evidence for this. If that was the case, Romney wouldn't have surged after the first debate.

That’s why Romney won in October but even then he failed to win overall

But even then Romney still lost due to that huge deficit he had before that debate due to the perception the Obama camp created.

[Sadader]

Probably because she absolutely crushed all three, lmao.

[twenty42]

Probably because she absolutely crushed all three, lmao.

Could you provide evidence that she "absolutely crushed" the second debate? It's pretty widely accepted even among those who believe she narrowly won it that she was off her game in spots and that Trump stymied her on a couple of responses.