If that was the weakest part of the debate for him, then he did fine. Those single issue voters were showing up and voting against him no matter what.

she nailed all of the republican talking points and made ossof look like the eggheaded and caring liberal that is hated by ppl in that area of the country.

2p2 is making the same mistake on who won the debate they did with hillary. Hillary clearly lost those debates with trump but 2p2 refused to hear it. It's not about points or appearing smarter, people do not care about that at all or what liberals care about. He's the underdog, he needed to figure out something to motivate people to vote for him and he appeared way too bland for that to me.

Handel prob wins something like 55-45.

Can you imagine if ossof had said he didn't support a livable wage? Even though she obviously misspoke. The right would crucify him and air that one statement on a loop.

Guess we'll see if the Ossof can capitalize on that.

If points or smarts don't matter, what is motivational? You brought up trump... You mean something motivating like the race card?

motivational is generally either charisma (ie, obama/bill clinton) or hate (ie, trump). Ideally with a catchy slogan. Trump won debates b/c Hillary's message was LOL everything's great, when it obviously isn't unless you're a CEO, or the average poster on the boards who's likely a vastly overpaid lawyer/finance bro.

From viewing handel/ossoff I think it was a draw which means R wins b/c it's a R district. Neither stood out. Too much foreign policy q's in the debate hurt b/c only a few give a ****.

For the hundredth time, Trump didn't win the debates in any scientific polling or focus groups, as you can easily confirm. This isn't some 2p2 or Dem pundit talking point. He also lost the popular vote. There is no reasonable basis to conclude that he won the debates.

It's called the results of the 2016 Presidential Election.

I'm a rural midwesterner (IL) and he definitively won the debates here more than the standard R/D dynamic and that translated across the rest of the midwest. That was one of the many reasons he ended up winning. One vote in CA != one vote elsewhere.

He doesn't have to win the debates overall, just in specific areas, which he clearly did.

Talking about winning the popular vote is like declaring your team got more yards in a football game your team lost. It's annoying and irrelevant.

The only acceptable reason for bringing it up is if you're talking to trump directly because it'd needle the hell out of him.

Or when trumpkins say "WE THE PEOPLE SPOKE." Only problem is you tell them the people voted against him and they come back with the sweet "5 MILLION ILLEGAL VOTES."

The only sensible metric to measure who won a debate is to ask the people who watched the debate who won, with the majority holder being declared the winner. That would be Hillary Clinton three for three. You saying he won the debate because rural midwesterners who probably didn't watch voted for him is the real irrelevancy here. If you want to say "Trump won imo" fine. But your thesis that Trump incontrovertibly won the debates exposing once and for all the 2p2 bubble is garbage based only on your feels.

Cannot think of a dumber way to "measure" who won debates - a granular part of a long campaign - than using EC as a proxy. Maybe taking Drudge Report's online poll is dumber?

"I can't think of anything dumber than looking at the results of the super bowl and determining who the better team is!"

Seriously, everybody on 2p2 insisted that Hillary won the debate and that clearly wasn't true (in the areas it actually matters, as a NY/CA vote is irrelevant). Trump won every swing state but nevada and won supposed dem strongholds ffs, and you think he didn't win the arguments convincingly? ffs. Unreal the level of denial and I hate Trump probably more than anyone else here.

Fact is, the people around here that weren't fox news or liberal die hards--watched the debates and came away with trump winning them. Most of you don't know **** about the midwest. I don't know **** about california and would never insist trump won the debate there, but he knew not to bother, Hillary debated to win states she already had in the bag, gjge.

I try to learn from my mistakes, I find it sad that many of you still refuse. At least you all didn't go into slavery defending like the hillary cult was doing on twitter yesterday. I guess that's something.

Yes, I gotta stop posting, I'm not good enough to have it lead to anything constructive, I can't help myself because I'm a fool. At least I admit it.

You can't differentiate between a debate and an entire campaign?

This is an amazing amount of self-awareness.

"which team performed better on the opening drive?"

"well the patriots won the game, dumbass, so clearly they crushed on the opening drive."

I think it's possible to have a rational conversation about who the better or smarter candidate is or who won the debate yet still keep in mind that many people are ****ing idiots and will vote for the worse one. We could still cling to the belief that going for the lowest common denominator is not noble or better

Grunching.

So the significance of winning candidate debates is what?

1. Apparently the contention here from goofy and AllTheCheese is that HRC gained a substantial number of votes from winning the debates. Since TRUMP lost, TRUMP's electoral college victory was a lot narrower because he lost. In other words if TRUMP had won the debates his electoral college victory might well have been larger and HRC's popular vote victory much narrower.

Or maybe goofy and AllTheCheese are claiming that.

2. Yes HRC won the debates but their impact on election outcomes is insignificant.

Hmmm...
Apparently JudgeHoldem thinks the answer is behind door number 2

I'd say not completely insignificant but less than they probably should be

so osoff D is winning huge here right? and this was supposed to be a republican district, so trump is pulling republicans down big league? im watching the rcp average

The polls show the race basically neck and neck. Most are something like 48/47/5 with Ossoff leading and 5% undecided.

i see, i was looking at a previous race or something.

but is there indications that trump is dragging republicans down at this point or is this not the case yet?

The fact that this race is even close reflects poorly on Trump. Same with the Montana election.

D's have been on average overperforming in special elections. Only has flipped two state seats. Based on that overperformance, this race should be close.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...st-everywhere/

Polls so far show good results for Ossof from debate, let's just hope this time it translates to a W.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/new-...ndel/531355052

I'm at the early voting location in Cobb County right now. The line is around the building. People are passing out free water and snacks.

At the nearest street corner, there's​ a large group of ver jubilant Ossoff supporters waving signs and cheering at cars that beep at them.

Now someone came by with umbrellas for shade.

It's​ quite the groovy scene.