Yes. Clinton is going to be President. An a$$ move, even toward someone that deserve it, right before isn't a good start. No need to agitate crazies. Maybe she can even win some of them over during her terms.
I wish Hillary would bait him by presenting one of his "trumpisms" and then as soon as he says, "I never said that", she proceeds to fact-check him by repeating his statement verbatim. A few of my favorites: Spoiler He's guaranteed to flip his lectern
I think before the third debate Hillary should have a press conference where she's sitting with all of Trump's accusers lined up next to her.
It's just amazing that millions of deplorables will be voting in a dunce who denounces climate weather patterns with a daily weather forecast. It truly is surreal. Just imagine a scientist trying to teach him the concepts of potential energy and how heat increases energy stored in the oceans to produce more perception which means more snow/sleet.
Trump and his delusional supporters will think they can pull off some miracle in the third debate. In reality its a lose lose for the Republicans, if Trump continues to shine a bad light on the conservative spectrum, it is only more bad news for the senate rate. If Trump wins (the debate) then they risk getting usurped by the rising Trump supporters.
I think we saw the best that Trump could ever do and that was his second debate. If he has a repeat performance, it changes nothing. He can't have a better performance because we've already seen his best. There is plenty of room for him to go down in terms of quality. Hillary will want it because she can't lose.
I completely agree with this. I think Clinton has the election won but that doesn't mean that her presidency is secured. She needs to continue to speak more to the country to plan for what her presidency will be. She will be coming in at a time when the country is very divided and her opponent has thrown more fuel on the fire. If she continues to present herself as a calm and collected in the face of Trump going Vesuvius it will help her actually govern.
"The Clinton machine is at the center of this power structure," Trump said. "We have seen this in the WikiLeaks documents in which Hillary Clinton meets in secret with international banks to plot the destruction of U.S. sovereignty in order to enrich these global financial powers, her special interest friends, and her donors." Other co-conspirators named by Trump earlier in the week included "crooked" public pollsters who showed Trump losing, election officials and "other communities" in swing states threatening to rig ballots, and a "sinister deal"involving Speaker Paul Ryan that Trump did not elaborate upon.
They should have it. But I'd like to see Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, and Evan McMullin there. Make it a real debate, not just Replican vs. Democrat candidates.
Johnson and McMullin both have a real chance of winning a state and getting electoral votes. I included Stein because she's polling in the top 4 of the popular vote.
So basically, you just want your own arbitrary cutoffs to create a "real debate" instead of the arbitrary ones that the commission setup, which apparently don't create real debates? Why is "top 4" a better metric than "top 2"? If you had 4 candidates: 30%, 30%, 28%, and 2%, does "top 4" make any sense? Or why is "real chance of winning a state" (which Gary Johnson does NOT have) a better metric than "real chance of winning the Presidency"? You seem to only want people on stage that can win. The commission seems to agree - they just look at it nationally instead of winning a particular state.
I guess I feel that Justin Beiber is popular, not because he is a talented musician, but because Clear Channel Radio continues to play his music incessantly. By allowing non-major party participants who have gained substantial traction on their own to join the conversation improves democracy and the potential for thoughtful dialog in American politics. Otherwise the system tends to gravitate towards a big "us vs. them" mud slinging fest.
This might be the first time in history that people are tuning in to a debate with the purpose of being entertained
I agree completely with this. I just question what we consider "substantial". Jill Stein is polling at 2% or so. McMullin isn't even on the ballot on most states. Gary Johnson at least has some polling support, but even he can't crack 10%. Why is 15% an unreasonable standard?
