After all, Clinton would have helped put Trum in the Republican primary because Clinton had a lot of Democrat cross over votes that could rig the Republican open primaries. Which allows her to select her opponent more carefully for the general, assuming she could get rid of Sanders.

As for Trum, he wouldn’t have accepted any Presidential run without the freedom to go for the throne if he actually takes the general ticket in the RNC. He wouldn’t run just to lose, even as a personal favor to the Clintons.

Generally speaking, Trum could have run in either primary, but as a favor to Clinton and as a warning from Clinton as well, they chose not to fight each other on this, except perhaps at the general. Of course Clinton would not have expected Trum to win the primary. Now that Trum has, Clinton can have a good match with him. No matter who wins, there’ll be free pardons thrown around and favors called in.

That New York value system, about as corrupt as Chicago or DC system.

Ted Cruz made a remark about that, New York values.

Of course, with the power of the Internet Propaganda, anything can be inverted.

I managed almost 10 seconds and that was enough.

Perhaps true.

But, this was a prime opportunity for trump (and clinton) to swing the independents their way.

Those already on board with trump don’t need any more convincing.

Unlike trump’s “base”, the independents are not looking for “red meat”, but some reassurance that trump has a plan that stands up to a bit of scrutiny and that he has the wherewithal / temperament / commitment to stand by it and implement it.

The white suburban women that everybody thinks Trump must win will think that important. Will others? I think there are voters who will resonate to Trump’s line, “You’ve been in politics for 30 years, why haven’t you accomplished any of that?” (not verbatim), but I suspect they’re already Trump voters.

As to what the few remaining undecided will do ,I have no clue.

Of the obvious interruptions on Holt’s part, they seem more to brink trump back to the point of the question, or to give some semblance of a time limit in trump’s response.

It sure seemed that Holt gave trump two to three whacks at a question to clinton’s one, largely because trump’s sometimes wandering or tangential response did not nominally address the question.

Politicians normally avoid a question by reframing it more favorably, and answering that (this was clinton in spades), but trump wasn’t even doing that at times.

Sure came across as “unprepared”, at minimum.

That said, neither candidate seemed to “seal the deal” with their performances in this debate.

@GB – Not sure about Caddell’s poll, and who was targeted, but that is very different from undecideds in PA in Luntz’s focus group measured directly.

Also, a “bar poll” doesn’t measure up to either of those in having any validity. It is rather weak evidence, and serves more as entertainment / filler / spin in the NYPost.

And, referencing a poll from BEFORE the debate doesn’t really give much of a measure of the impact of that debate.

In fact, RCP Average is showing a significant uptick for BOTH clinton and trump, with clinton slowly extending her lead from the 0.9% just nine days ago – this is all before the debate.

I believe that he must have been incredibly lucky to hire competent people to do his analysis and negotiating. Maybe the several bankruptcies were the deals he tried to do himself.

To GB’s point above, I don’t think anything the guy does will hurt him. I saw what I expected, an igorant and dangerous narcissist who should never be trusted with his own military, executive enforcement branch, state police and nuclear arsenal. But I’ve been never Trump from the beginning. If his performance made people think he’d be a good president, we’re beyond help.

Trump did not do well. He didn’t explode, which is a plus, but he did not do as well as I had hoped.

Hillary, OTOH, showed energy and focus (as someone said previously, she’s got an impressive pharmacopeia) and I think she did better than expected.

But what did each have to do, and did they succeed?

Trump had to win over women. I don’t think he did so.

Hillary had to attract men. I think she came across as the first wife many men have experienced, so I don’t think she did so. She looked smug. That’s a real loser.

Debates illustrate who can think on their feet. Is that the hallmark of a good president? I don’t believe so. I think a good president has to surround the office with very smart people. In my experience, Republicans have done better at this than Democrats, with the exception of Kennedy. I expect that experience to be continued.

No matter which of the two candidates comes through in the election, I don’t expect the nation to be well served.