So I’m sure you agreed with all their previous endorsements of Republican candidates and you’re not just considering them an authority now because they agree with you.
Did you ever hear the phrase, “Only Nixon could go to China”?
If so, did you ever understand it?
That’s a pretty silly thing to say. He’s not considering them an “authority”. They are a staunchly Republican paper that for this election broke with a century old tradition because of the Republican candidate. That’s a notable thing. And your implication that it’s some sort of hypocrisy to agree with one editorial if you don’t agree with every other editorial they’ve written is equally ridiculous. If Cheney suddenly agreed that human caused climate change is real, I’m not obliged to respect all his past statements on the subject.
To no small degree beating the spread, i.e. exceeding the expectations on how much she would relatively dominate the evening, is what “winning” is defined as.
So yes, she more than covered the spread.
Now will she beat the spread on the post debate bump? A bump of 2 to 3 is likely the spread, i.e. what the pundits are expecting (and consistent with current betting markets having moved up to 74% Clinton probability). If she gets a bump of 4 or more then that is beating the post-debate assessment spread as well.
Yep, if Cheney did that the value of that is just what it is: It is more valuable among Republicans that should realize that there are times when the nation comes ahead of partizan designs.
One should notice also that **TriPolar **was just killing the messenger and not dealing with the points the newspaper made.
There’s no substance in those points, or your citing the paper. It’s the same old argument that pervades this election, the other guy is worse. This time it’s clearly true, Trump has so poisoned the well that he could not operate as president. To say Hillary is not as bad as Trump is the weakest of possible endorsements, and in the case of this newspaper is only due to Trump’s behavior. That paper would not endorse Hillary against any other Republican candidate that fit the traditional mold. Hillary Clinton will be our next president and we can only hope that for the first time in her life she will accomplish something other than promoting herself.
Hillary Clinton’s accomplishments (other than promoting herself):
He was like a (small, troll-like) baby seal and Clinton was the mean old Russian sailor…
I think the debate itself was in the range of the subjective as to whether Clinton ‘stomped’ Trump. You’d have to very heavily emphasize Trump’s successes and forget a lot of his problems in every respect (content, delivery, body language and so on) to say he won. However if you’re an undecided ‘anti elite’ non ideological type voter you might emphasize more the hits he got in on her (trade, her position as political insider in a system they think doesn’t work anymore) and her presentation as smug defender of that system. You might think she won but not by a lot. I chose that as answer most relevant to the key voters, though I accept it’s also important to the Democratic base that they can enthuse themselves by plausibly thinking she ‘stomped’ him.
However Trump’s failure in the post debate is by a wide margin and less dependent on one’s POV. It’s Friday and he’s still tweeting about fat ‘sex tape’ making beauty queen. It’s hard to see any argument how that benefits him. And all week he’s offered excuses rather than just re-hammering on the points where he got in some effective hits. The media predictably has emphasized the silly excuse making (‘I could have done better, but chose not to’ was a particular gem) over anything else.
:rolleyes:
Everyone can check that the newspaper is not just doing that, Clinton got the endorsement for several positive reasons that they see on Clinton.
By any reasonable standard, Clinton won easily.
Unfortunately, reasonable standards don’t seem to matter with Trump. The people who love him will ALWAYS insist that he won, and that he is/was right about everything.