I think she did a great job. I think he worked hard to improve on criticisms from the first debate and did a good job of hammering his batshit messages home. I still call that a Clinton win because she actually looks presidential.
I love love love that she said she is proud of her 30 years and listed some of her accomplishments. He has been pushing that message and she has been avoiding responding. I love how she did it. Her career should not be an insult.
This is what kills me. This is a woman who has been in some form of public service her entire adult life. She has experience. Maybe she's not the most charismatic speaker, but I do get the impression she cares about people.
Trump doesn't care about anyone that doesn't directly benefit him. His life's work has been building an empire for his name. And this is the man some white people want representing America.
Also, reporter from MSNBC says tomorrow's WaPo will report on back stage theatrics: Giuliani and Bannon wanted the four women they brought for the panel to sit in the family box, thus requiring that they pass and greet WJC. the head of the commission on debates said no way and they are ripshit pissed. Threatened to pull out of next debate. Commenters think since now that he rallied his base he'll WANT to debate. They basically say he did well enough to remain an albatross around the neck of the party.
Trump wanted to put Bill Clinton’s accusers in his family box. Debate officials said no. By Robert Costa, Dan Balz and Philip Rucker October 10 at 2:07 AM
ST. LOUIS — Donald Trump’s campaign sought to intimidate Hillary Clinton and embarrass her husband by seating women who have accused former president Bill Clinton of sexual abuse in the Trump family’s box at the presidential debate here Sunday night, according to four people involved in the discussions.
The campaign’s plan, which was closely held and unknown to several of Trump’s top aides, was thwarted just minutes before it could be executed when officials with the Commission on Presidential Debates intervened. The commission officials warned that, if the Trump campaign tried to seat the accusers in the elevated family box, security officers would remove the women, according to the people involved, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the discussions were confidential.
The gambit to give Bill Clinton’s accusers prime seats was devised by Trump campaign chief executive Stephen K. Bannon and Jared Kushner, the candidate’s son-in-law, and approved personally by Trump. The four women — three of whom have alleged Bill Clinton sexually assaulted or harassed them years ago — were to walk in the debate hall at the same time as the 42nd president and confront him in front of a national television audience.
“We were going to put the four women in the VIP box,” said former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, who represents Trump in debate negotiations. “We had it all set. We wanted to have them shake hands with Bill, to see if Bill would shake hands with them.”
The four women —Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey and Kathy Shelton – sat with other ticketed members of the audience. Bill Clinton long has denied their allegations.
Frank J. Fahrenkopf, the debate commission’s co-chairman and a former Republican National Committee chairman, caught wind of the plot on Sunday and immediately moved to put an end to it. Fahrenkopf tartly warned a Trump staffer that if the campaign tried to put the four women in the family box, security personnel would remove them, according to people with direct knowledge of the conversations.
“Fahrenkopf said, ‘no’ – verbally said ‘no,’ that ‘security would throw them out,’” Giuliani said.
That came shortly after commission officials told the Clinton campaign that they could not seat Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) with Bill and Chelsea Clinton and her husband, Marc Mesvinsky, in the Clinton family box. The discussions continued up until the debate programming began.
After issuing his warning, Fahrenkopf and co-chairman Mike McCurry, a former Clinton White House press secretary, took the stage to make pre-debate announcements.
At that point, the co-chairmen were not certain whether the Trump campaign would abide by Fahrenkopf’s order. A Republican strategist later said that it was only when Fahrenkopf saw Giuliani leading the women to other seats that he knew the campaign had backed down.
Giuliani said Bannon kept pushing to have the women come out until three minutes before the debate began.
“But we pulled it because we were going to have a big incident on national TV,” Giuliani said. “Frank Fahrenkopf stopped us and we weren’t going to have a fight on national TV with the commission to start the debate.”
Bannon declined to comment late Sunday, but his role in coming up with the idea was confirmed by multiple Trump campaign advisers. Senior Clinton campaign officials said they were unaware of the Trump campaign’s plans to try to seat the women in the family box.
Giuliani was highly critical of Fahrenkopf in an interview after the debate Sunday and said the Trump campaign is considering asking for him to step aside before the third and final debate, scheduled for Sept. 19 in Las Vegas.
Giuliani said it was unfair that the commission allowed Mark Cuban, a billionaire Trump tormenter and Clinton surrogate, to sit in the front row, but would not permit Bill Clinton’s accusers to sit in Trump’s family box.
“In the first debate with Mark Cuban, Fahrenkopf said we’ll make a deal and everybody will [be able] to approve who’s in the shot and if it’s not family, they have a right to object and we have a right to object,” Giuliani said. “So we object. But 10 minutes before that debate he tells us he can’t do anything about Cuban sitting in the first row, that security can’t throw him out.”
Giuliani said that experience led them to believe the campaigns could control their seats.
However, the staging of the second debate differed from the first.
In St. Louis, family members sat in an elevated box, while in Hempstead, N.Y., they were seated in the front row with other attendees.
“The women were outraged,” Giuliani said. “They were in the holding room and ready to go. No one was pushing them. They volunteered. But I knew the minute we got pushback that we had gotten into their heads. [Hillary Clinton] was rattled. They were rattled.”
This is so unbelievably appalling, even for the Trump campaign. And it explains so much - we couldn't figure out why they'd go to the lengths to make this dog and pony show happen and then do nothing with it. It just made him look like an intimidating bully (which of course he is) to bring them there and then do nothing with it (which I'm glad for, but just strategically it made no sense). I was near tears before the start just thinking of how AWFUL it is that this woman, on one of the most important nights of her life, was forced to deal with that.
I'm pretty sure I've seen recently a piece on campaign strategy that the days of her putting a great deal of focus on wooing Rs who dislike Trump are mostly over. She'll continue to do it when it makes sense, and capitalize on defections/unendorsements to the extent possible, but it's not as significant a part of her strategy in the last 30 days as making sure that her base gets out to vote. Hitting on the fact that she will nominate Supreme Court justices who will defend Roe & marriage equality and keep corporate influence more in line WILL be a motivating factor for the base (just like SCOTUS nominees are one reason why some conservatives continue to stick by Trump).
If her reminding voters of her position on SCOTUS noms makes some would-be centrist Rs who are still waffling uncomfortable, well, they are honestly less important to her victory than the millions and millions of Dems that must turn out for her to win.
Unpopular opinion: there is new technology out there that makes coal a lot more environmentally friendly. It's just extremely expensive.
This is true.
My argument, though, is that since coal is by nature non-renewable, which means we're going to run out of it eventually no matter what we do, why not spend that money to roll out an optimal system of clean, renewable sources now?
I'm pretty sure I've seen recently a piece on campaign strategy that the days of her putting a great deal of focus on wooing Rs who dislike Trump are mostly over. She'll continue to do it when it makes sense, and capitalize on defections/unendorsements to the extent possible, but it's not as significant a part of her strategy in the last 30 days as making sure that her base gets out to vote. Hitting on the fact that she will nominate Supreme Court justices who will defend Roe & marriage equality and keep corporate influence more in line WILL be a motivating factor for the base (just like SCOTUS nominees are one reason why some conservatives continue to stick by Trump).
If her reminding voters of her position on SCOTUS noms makes some would-be centrist Rs who are still waffling uncomfortable, well, they are honestly less important to her victory than the millions and millions of Dems that must turn out for her to win.
I keep hearing about these Rs who are socially liberal (I'm too lazy to look up the %, but I remember being surprised how at many pro choice republican women there are). I'd think this would be a draw for them.
I don't think Hillary is going to play along with plans to gut the safety net, but she's also not going to blow up the economy to suit herself or because she feels offended about something on a random Thursday. You don't have that guarantee with Trump.
I'm pretty sure I've seen recently a piece on campaign strategy that the days of her putting a great deal of focus on wooing Rs who dislike Trump are mostly over. She'll continue to do it when it makes sense, and capitalize on defections/unendorsements to the extent possible, but it's not as significant a part of her strategy in the last 30 days as making sure that her base gets out to vote. Hitting on the fact that she will nominate Supreme Court justices who will defend Roe & marriage equality and keep corporate influence more in line WILL be a motivating factor for the base (just like SCOTUS nominees are one reason why some conservatives continue to stick by Trump).
If her reminding voters of her position on SCOTUS noms makes some would-be centrist Rs who are still waffling uncomfortable, well, they are honestly less important to her victory than the millions and millions of Dems that must turn out for her to win.
I keep hearing about these Rs who are socially liberal (I'm too lazy to look up the %, but I remember being surprised how at many pro choice republican women there are). I'd think this would be a draw for them.
I don't think Hillary is going to play along with plans to gut the safety net, but she's also not going to blow up the economy to suit herself or because she feels offended about something on a random Thursday. You don't have that guarantee with Trump.
Yes that is the other piece. The women who are likely to defect over Trump's misogyny are not women who are hard core Pro-Life voters. They are pro-life but not single issue voters OR pro-choice but not single issue voters are open to the status quo of pro-choice. This really did no harm and likely helped ramp up the base for her by reminding them what is at stake.
I know this threads 94 pages in but I'm not just joining the game.
I think she did well- poised, answered questions, had a plan. H has always voted party lines (we're R) and after last night debate, he is not voting for Trump.
About abortion- I don't think Hil needs to address it. Trump is "prolife" but I don't get the impression it's not a hot core value of his campaign. I also think he's just saying that to align with R voters.