• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Lets get ready for some Debating Cage Fights Round 1,2, and 3

Page 70 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
So I saw that CNN poll shows Clinton winning the debate by +13, while the same poll showed her winning the 2nd debate by like +23. I don't get that. I thought Clinton only barely won debate #2, but she totally owned Trump this time around. Guess I'm out of sync with the bulk of debate watchers.
 
woolfe9998 said:
So I saw that CNN poll shows Clinton winning the debate by +13, while the same poll showed her winning the 2nd debate by like +23. I don't get that. I thought Clinton only barely won debate #2, but she totally owned Trump this time around. Guess I'm out of sync with the bulk of debate watchers.
Click to expand...
They polls skewed more democrat last two times. This one was almost an even split. They qualified both prior snap polls with that fact when they were done.
 
I did want to comment on one substantive point in the debate which hasn't gotten much mention: Trump's challenge to Clinton to give money donated to the Clinton Foundation back to countries like Saudi Arabia who donated. Why would you give the money back to the Saudis instead of using it to help people? Is it somehow better that the Saudis have this money instead of say, starving children or AIDs patients? These weren't donations made to a political campaign. They were donations to charity. Frankly, if I ran a charity back in 1943 I would have taken money from Hitler and used it to help people because the money is better spent helping people than being in the hands of Hitler.
 
MomentsofSanity said:
They polls skewed more democrat last two times. This one was almost an even split. They qualified both prior snap polls with that fact when they were done.
Click to expand...

Yes, all polls over-sampled democrats. This one less so. But I doubt it accounts for such a large split between those two polls, especially since it seems obvious, at least to me, that Clinton won by a much greater margin this time around.
 
woolfe9998 said:
I did want to comment on one substantive point in the debate which hasn't gotten much mention: Trump's challenge to Clinton to give money donated to the Clinton Foundation back to countries like Saudi Arabia who donated. Why would you give the money back to the Saudis instead of using it to help people? Is it somehow better that the Saudis have this money instead of say, starving children or AIDs patients? These weren't donations made to a political campaign. They were donations to charity. Frankly, if I ran a charity back in 1943 I would have taken money from Hitler and used it to help people because the money is better spent helping people than being in the hands of Hitler.
Click to expand...
What I found more glaring about that is how many of the countries he himself does business in.

Ever the hypocrite.
 
woolfe9998 said:
I did want to comment on one substantive point in the debate which hasn't gotten much mention: Trump's challenge to Clinton to give money donated to the Clinton Foundation back to countries like Saudi Arabia who donated. Why would you give the money back to the Saudis instead of using it to help people? Is it somehow better that the Saudis have this money instead of say, starving children or AIDs patients? These weren't donations made to a political campaign. They were donations to charity. Frankly, if I ran a charity back in 1943 I would have taken money from Hitler and used it to help people because the money is better spent helping people than being in the hands of Hitler.
Click to expand...
I was thinking the same thing. She missed a great opportunity.
 
woolfe9998 said:
I did want to comment on one substantive point in the debate which hasn't gotten much mention: Trump's challenge to Clinton to give money donated to the Clinton Foundation back to countries like Saudi Arabia who donated. Why would you give the money back to the Saudis instead of using it to help people? Is it somehow better that the Saudis have this money instead of say, starving children or AIDs patients? These weren't donations made to a political campaign. They were donations to charity. Frankly, if I ran a charity back in 1943 I would have taken money from Hitler and used it to help people because the money is better spent helping people than being in the hands of Hitler.
Click to expand...

It plays to the base that honestly think the Clintons make money on the foundation, or at least strongly benefit from it.
 
Zorba said:
It plays to the base that honestly think the Clintons make money on the foundation, or at least strongly benefit from it.
Click to expand...

And that is Trump's problem. He's great at pandering to his 35% base. So when does he ever get around to making a pitch to the rest of us? This, among other reasons, is why he's going to lose.
 
woolfe9998 said:
Yes, all polls over-sampled democrats. This one less so. But I doubt it accounts for such a large split between those two polls, especially since it seems obvious, at least to me, that Clinton won by a much greater margin this time around.
Click to expand...

She was better in this debate, but Trump was WAY worse in the second debate.
 
woolfe9998 said:
I did want to comment on one substantive point in the debate which hasn't gotten much mention: Trump's challenge to Clinton to give money donated to the Clinton Foundation back to countries like Saudi Arabia who donated. Why would you give the money back to the Saudis instead of using it to help people? Is it somehow better that the Saudis have this money instead of say, starving children or AIDs patients? These weren't donations made to a political campaign. They were donations to charity. Frankly, if I ran a charity back in 1943 I would have taken money from Hitler and used it to help people because the money is better spent helping people than being in the hands of Hitler.
Click to expand...

Some people do not read into things too far I guess.

Hillary was not even involved with the Clinton Foundation other than a maybe 2 years and bowed out of it when it looked it would be questioned.

It has done a lot of good over time, like Bill Gate's Foundation everyone used to trash.

Trump's Foundation has mostly been money laundering over time.

Even worst, straight out diversion of funds to his children.
 
woolfe9998 said:
And that is Trump's problem. He's great at pandering to his 35% base. So when does he ever get around to making a pitch to the rest of us? This, among other reasons, is why he's going to lose.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree. I am actually surrounded by his base here in Oklahoma, and the majority of people I talk about it with, even the people that believe Hillary killed Vince Foster aren't going to vote for Trump. So I am not sure it is even really helping him with his base.
 
woolfe9998 said:
Yes, all polls over-sampled democrats. This one less so. But I doubt it accounts for such a large split between those two polls, especially since it seems obvious, at least to me, that Clinton won by a much greater margin this time around.
Click to expand...
Chris Wallace purposely asked questions that the country is highly divided on, immigration, abortion, guns. It gives Trump better odds at favorable results.
 
Last edited:
I have to say, Clinton's answer to Trump's refusal to commit to accepting the election results was brilliant. Giving examples of how he always says the deck is stacked against him because he can't take responsibility for losing, perfectly encapsulates Trump. It was his worst answer of the night and probably her best. She totally nailed him on that.
 
soundforbjt said:
Chris Wallace purposely asked questions that the country is evenly divided on, immigration, abortion, guns. It gives Trump better odds at favorable results.
Click to expand...

Is there anything wrong with that? I was pretty against Chris Wallace getting this gig, but I think he actually ended up being one of the best moderators I can remember. I was worried we were going to spend 20 minutes on e-mails and 20 minutes on pay for play.
 
Zorba said:
Is there anything wrong with that? I was pretty against Chris Wallace getting this gig, but I think he actually ended up being one of the best moderators I can remember. I was worried we were going to spend 20 minutes on e-mails and 20 minutes on pay for play.
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong with the questions, just explaining why the poll results were more favorable towards Trump this time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top