Yeah, it’s a reference to a video of her talking to a conference of people by video, but when you remove the sound from the loud conference it’s just her yelling into a camera.
So, basically the same bullshit as usual. Convincing to the deplorables, but not the normies.
Clinton: You know what else I’m prepared for, I’m prepared to be president.
Today,
Trump campaign spin, Clinton was over prepared.
Please put those two comments together in an Ad Hillary.
Holt did an excellent job, and set a strong example for the debates to come. After Lauer, I was really worried, but Holt was great. I hope the subsequent moderators follow his example. We already know that Wallace won’t fact check Trump, but hopefully he’ll at least hold him to answering the question at hand.
This. Hillary has been preparing for the debates for weeks, and I think it’s clear she has Trump pretty much figured out. Trump, on the other hand, only has 12 days to prep for the next debate, and that’s only if he fights his nature and crams like a champ. Hillary won’t be resting between now and then, so I doubt Trump could close the gap even if he has an amazing week. I really hope that lots of prominent people say mean things about him on twitter such that he can’t control himself.
“The media hyped it like a prize fight,” he continued, showing clips of CNN’s promos for the event. “Based on that intro, you’d assume the debate was taking place in the UFC Octagon.”
So this was the political equivalent of the CM Punk UFC fight. 
I kind of suspected it was that video he was talking about, but the reference to the AFL-CIO and it being last week confused me. That video was from an AFSCME convention back in July. I wasn’t sure if there was another, newer, instance he was referring to.
They put out an ad the day of the debate that mashes up the AFSCME speech with the deplorables speech (in which she is standing in front of a blue curtain), so I think that’s what he’s referencing. But he is a lunatic so be botched it a bit.
I was surprised that Trump made a point that wonky sounding at all, saying that Mexico’s taxation by VAT, with export rebate (as is typical of VAT’s everywhere) gave it an advantage NAFTA should correct for.
Indeed Paul Krugman has argued this is wrong, at least as far back as this National Bureau of Economic Research article written with the well known Republican economist Martin Feldstein in 1990.
Basically the argument Trump gave, which is often heard (usually in favor of the US adopting a VAT rather than changing NAFTA…the vast bulk of US trade is with partners who have a VAT), is that a VAT is an export subsidy because of the export rebate, whereas foreign imports are subject to the VAT. Krugman and Feldstein argued this was wrong, in a simple idealized case, by reference to how a retail sales tax works. To adapt their argument in a separate example, if a Mexican and US factory can sell a car at acceptable profit for $20k net and Mexico has a 16% VAT but US no VAT, the cars entirely made and sold in Mexico with sell for $23.2k, $20k net to the car maker, same with cars entirely made in the US sold in Mexico. The entirely Mexican made cars will sell in the US for $20k (VAT rebated) net to the maker, as will the US made ones. Which is how an RST would work and nobody says that’s an export subsidy.
The paper mainly covers how this simple example doesn’t work fully in the real case of trade as a whole considering that VAT’s aren’t uniformly applied (to all goods and services), countries don’t just sell the same stuff to one another, and other taxes must exist if there’s no VAT and they affect trade relative to a VAT. But they conclude it’s still wrong to consider a VAT categorically as an export competitiveness booster in practice. Most economists agree…OTOH most economists agree free trade is the best policy and that doesn’t stop most or at least a big chunk of the public believing the opposite, from Bernie supporters to Trump supporters to lots of people in between.
I’m sure it’s too early to tell why, but Princeton has Florida and NC blue today.
I suspect there will be a nice poll bounce for Hillary over the next 72 hours due to her performance. If I was the blonde bimbo, I’d be real worried about my goober’s ability to perform from now on.
It was a good debate, Lester Holt was excellent, and although Trump lost by a wide margin I thought he got the bulk of his message across that his handlers wanted him to get across: He hammered Clinton and the establishment on trade and repeatedly referenced her as a typical politician. Problem is, he got crushed on ethics issues and failed to make Clinton pay for her own ethics issues. He never answered the birther question, never answered the 1973 housing discrimination lawsuit, and Clinton easily parried his reference to her emails.
For the next debate he needs to stop interrupting and stay focused on his central argument for his candidacy, while answering questions directly. Direct answers to direct questions are important when you’re portraying yourself as different from that slippery politician standing next to him. What viewers saw was that the only difference between Clinton and Trump was that Clinton is good at being slippery and Trump is just a plain old bastard.
Clinton doesn’t need to change a thing other than her facial expressions. I know she was told to smile, but she just ended up looking smug and she has a tic that she smiles when an attack actually lands, much as a boxer smiles when he takes a good punch. To the extent I like Hillary, it’s as America’s version of Maggie Thatcher. I like stern Clinton dressing Trump down, not smug Clinton showing off her intellectual superiority. But that might just be me.
Oh, and get a message. No one has any clue what Clinton’s priorities are. She can’t just do everything in the first 100 days, she can’t do everything in four years. We know what animates Trump most. We have no idea what Clinton is going to prioritze. The economy? ISIS? Taxes? Russia? Immigration? Civil rights? Guns? Even if Democrats controlled everything, she’d only be able to move significantly on 3-4 of those issues in her first term.
It was viewed by millions.
*Monday night’s debate drew a 46.2 television rating and 63 share.
That number is a 17% spike over the first debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in 2012.
…
The overnight rating for the Clinton-Trump debate is just 6% off the Super Bowl’s number, meaning the number of viewers for the debate could be near 100 million.*
The lack of priorities on a laundry list (much of it seeming designed to placate Bernie-ites rather than any feeling she particularly believes in it, pretty different from centrist Senator Clinton) was a pre-existing problem. But it’s not a fatal problem if her main theme, ‘Trump isn’t fit’, succeeds. She made net progress on that theme I think.
Also though she would never say it, the likely choice is between Clinton facing a Republican House for at least 2 yrs and either compromising her currently stated positions a lot, or getting little done legislatively; and Trump with a GOP House and probably a narrow Senate majority if he wins, and being able to do significant things legislatively that don’t require breaking a filibuster and on which he can agree with Republicans (which is a subset of all the contradictory stuff he’s said on various issues, but he’d have more running room than she would, very likely). It’s less practically relevant what she (supposedly) would do if the Democrats controlled everything.
Here’s a transcript of the entire debate, for anyone who wants to search for what specifically was said.
I thought her response was very smart, she said that he can release them, and also brought up questions on why he hasn’t:
I thought she handled it well.
Not just that, but part of the problem is illegal immigrant gangs:
Also, he didn’t discriminate at a club he opened and is proud of that:
And If it continues to be a success, he will seriously consider extending this radical “no discrimination” policy to some of his other establishments!
There are some things she actually can do if they are prioritized, and one of the things I’ve been reading about her and minority voters is that they like what she’s saying, but will she take action upon taking office or decide, as all other Democratic Presidents do, that there are just too many more important things to do?
Obviously some things just won’t happen. There won’t be a tax increase and she won’t get any of her new spending. But she might be able to find common ground on other issues, like infrastructure spending, sentencing reform, and immigration. But unlike with past Presidents, I really don’t know what she’s going to be looking to do.
I liked her expressiveness. She looked like she enjoys the fight, and I’m fine with that quality in my national leader. She looked like she was taking on a bully, in control and enjoying it. It’s okay to be happy when you’re in a fight and winning.
At the end of the day, for me the debate simply cemented what I already thought. Secretary Clinton has some very troubling policy positions, and is tone deaf to the needs and concerns of people like me. Mr. Trump’s candidacy frightens me, and the fear of him representing my nation on the world stage is only eclipsed by the terror for my friends who remain on active duty.
Mr. Trump seems to believe that we’re losing everywhere, and that we should be afraid of the future. I’m not really sure why he believes that, things seem to be getting better consistently where I’m at. He seems to be of the opinion that money and money alone is the guiding light to what is good. Further his conception of honor seems to be responding to childishness with force. These seem to me to make him unfit to be the commander in chief of our military, who need to know that they will be taken care of when they are injured in the line of duty, and that the cause they fight for is worthy of their blood, fear, and pain.
I may over come my intense dislike of Secretary Clinton, and vote for her instead of a third party (I live in a state that will not go Trump) merely to increase her numbers in the popular vote. I guess it’s better than the 2000 election, while both candidates suck this time too, there’s a definite and obvious worse choice.
Seriously. All he had to do was show up, stand up, memorize a few facts and he’d be leading in the polls by 5 points. Instead, the only thing he put any effort into answering was how it all related to his businesses.
National Security Advisor: Sir, a nuclear bomb has just detonated in downtown Atlanta!
Trump (shocked): I… I… I have investments there.
It’s just weird to have a rich candidate actually basing a major part of his candidacy on just how different he is from the rest of us. “Yeah, I paid no federal taxes, I’m smart! What the hell is wrong with the 53% of you who do pay federal taxes? Morons!”
There was a lot of that. This morning on Fox, he doubled down on the Miss Universe incident where he called a contestant “Miss Piggy”. His defense was, ““She gained a massive amount of weight and it was a real problem.” So he used the well-it’s-true! defense, not realizing that does nothing to address his difficulty appealing to female voters.
Yeah, that and his “that’s called business” response to Hillary’s accusation that he took advantage of the housing crisis. I hope those comments get a lot of press in the coming days.
If there was press at this workout, are there clippings? Just how “fat” was “Miss Piggy” and “Miss Housekeeper” anyway?
Watch something come up and… she’s like 122 pounds or something.
Also, this.