You get what you deserve.
As Joaquin Flores wrote in an extensive analysis for Katehon (see: Trump's victory was moral and strategic), Trump played to his fans. Hillary's support is composed mostly of people who don't like her, but who dislike Trump even more. And despite her polished performance and fake smile (actually, it's probably because of those things), the average American probably liked Trump more. He comes across as a real person - albeit a small-minded, not very intelligent person, and since when did that combination of qualities ever rankle the average American?
As for an analysis of their actual policy proposals, ANC Report's Ryan Dawson's analysis is worth watching:
Now that the first debate is over and done with, a look at some polls is telling. LA Times polling data shows Trump's voter support continuing to rise after the September 26 debate, while Clinton's is falling (but note the "area of uncertainty"):
Data at top of image shows results for 9/26 - compare to numbers to those of today at the right of the curves.
Somewhat hilariously, BuzzFeed is running an online poll, the results of which prompted them to post a disclaimer "update" because, according to them, it "no longer accurately reflects the opinions of real people." (And no, they didn't define 'real people'.) Here's a screenshot of the latest results of the poll:
© Buzzfeed
Additional online polls showing that people thought Trump won the debate prompted an entertaining exchange between
That is a possibility, but it's a sword that cuts both ways: any poll, even a highly respected, "scientific" one can be "messed with". As for polls like BuzzFeed's, you'd think there'd be a few Killary fans willing to "mess with" the poll in order to at least give her as much support as the "Other" and "Undecided" categories. I guess not! Here's the current standing of a post-debate online poll run by Time Magazine:
This poll could have been 'messed with' too, but in which direction?
Killary's biggest supporters are to be found in the mainstream media. Gone are the days of fake, pseudo-impartiality. The MSM is now openly, unabashedly pro-Killary and anti-Trump. USA Today's editorial board released an unprecedented statement today:
USA TODAY's Editorial Board: Trump is 'unfit for the presidency'In other words, for the past 34 years, every presidential candidate has been a predictable, deep state-approved warmonger with the backing of Wall Street, the mega corporations, the big lobbies, the war industry, and the intelligence agencies. Trump is a wildcard. Sure, he'll probably be terrible for the nation in countless ways - just not in the approved ways.
The Editorial Board has never taken sides in the presidential race. We're doing it now.
In the 34-year history of USA TODAY, the Editorial Board has never taken sides in the presidential race. Instead, we've expressed opinions about the major issues and haven't presumed to tell our readers, who have a variety of priorities and values, which choice is best for them. Because every presidential race is different, we revisit our no-endorsement policy every four years. We've never seen reason to alter our approach. Until now.
This year, the choice isn't between two capable major party nominees who happen to have significant ideological differences. This year, one of the candidates — Republican nominee Donald Trump — is, by unanimous consensus of the Editorial Board, unfit for the presidency.
From the day he declared his candidacy 15 months ago through this week's first presidential debate, Trump has demonstrated repeatedly that he lacks the temperament, knowledge, steadiness and honesty that America needs from its presidents.
Whether through indifference or ignorance, Trump has betrayed fundamental commitments made by all presidents since the end of World War II. ...Whatever you do, however, resist the siren song of a dangerous demagogue. By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump.
- He is erratic. ...
- He is ill-equipped to be commander in chief. ...
- He traffics in prejudice. ...
- Trump has stirred racist sentiments in ways that can't be erased by his belated and clumsy outreach to African Americans. ...
- His business career is checkered. ...
- He isn't leveling with the American people. ...
- He speaks recklessly. ...
- He has coarsened the national dialogue. ...
- He's a serial liar. ...
USA Today's editorial board surely knows that Killary is unstable and irresponsible. She too has a checkered business career. She too is racist - responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Middle Easterners. She too is a serial liar. Unlike Trump, she is a seasoned politician; she isn't openly coarse, reckless, or prejudiced (except when she used to be anti-LGBT). She hides all that behind the accepted political mask of respectability. But it's all posturing, with no substance, and people know it. USA Today would just prefer all that stuff be kept in check in public - never mind the trail of bodies.
Even the UN tweeted a call - quickly deleted - for "8 million Americans abroad" to "stop Trump".
And if you can't trust the polls or the media, you can't trust the "fact-checkers" either. Or, at the very least, voters don't trust them:
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that just 29% of all Likely U.S. Voters trust media fact-checking of candidates' comments. Sixty-two percent (62%) believe instead that news organizations skew the facts to help candidates they support. (To see survey question wording, click here.)Chelsea Clinton made her own attempt at "fact-checking" in a recent Cosmo interview:
Eighty-eight percent (88%) of voters who support Trump in the presidential race believe news organizations skew the facts, while most Clinton backers (59%) trust media fact-checking. Among the supporters of Libertarian Gary Johnson and Green Party candidate Jill Stein, sizable majorities also don't trust media fact-checking.
And candidly, I don't remember a time in my life when my parents and my family weren't being attacked, and so it just sort of seems to be in that tradition, unfortunately. And what I find most troubling by far are Trump's — and we talked about this when you interviewed me the night before the Iowa caucus — are Trump's continued, relentless attacks on whole swaths of our country and even our global community: women, Muslims, Americans with disabilities, a Gold Star family. I mean, that, to me, is far more troubling than whatever his most recent screed against my mom or my family [is].Point taken. Trump has said and done some truly reprehensible things. But the response from Juanita Broaddrick, one of the many women whom Bill Clinton raped, is on point:
It demonstrates, so the video goes, that Hillary Clinton was giving subliminal messages, using what one could call facial stroking to signal to the host to intervene for the benefit of Hillary Clinton to make what is called and zinger.
[Link]
From the article and video
The video breaks down each one of Clinton’s movements which are followed by either Holt calling on her to comment and retort with what she believes is a zinger or Holt attacking Trump’s dialogue. Apparently in a move lifted right out of a high school cheating for dummies book, Clinton is seen scratching her nose and face to signal Holt several times.
Before critics view this video and scream Conspiracy, True Pundit cross referenced Clinton’s speeches, campaign appearances and her 2008 debate performances against President Obama. According to that analysis, Clinton never previously used these hand motions to supposedly scratch her face. In fact, she rarely touches her face at all. (So, you haters can save the trouble of instructing people to remove their tin-foil hats.)
So it begs the question, is this just another tinfoil hat conspiracy or does it have some truth. I must admit, I have never before seen a politician stroking there face when they appear before the public to deliver there message.