Apparently Flowers has agreed. If he actually seats her, I can't imagine that plays well with the majority of persuadable women.

"Here's your husband's mistress, ha ha."

DJT really needs to expand his adjectives. I mean it's very, very small.

I'm not a Trump supporter but that's pretty funny.

Gary Johnson has bizarre tongue-wagging episode on Morning Joe (Warning: this is disturbing) - Shareblue

Oh dear...

I can't comprehend what I just saw. Did he do that on purpose?

Huh. I mean, huh.

He did indeed. His point was that the two other candidates had such negative markers on them that if he were allowed on the stage, he could catch up to them just by showing voters that a third person was running. He wouldn't have to perform well at the debate; he could just show up and talk while doing that weird tongue thing all night, and he'd still get votes.

And it was a fine point to make as long as he didn't actually, for example, DO that.

But he did.

And it got weird.

And now he's Howard Dean'ed himself.

Meh, is this really any worse than Hillary Clinton barking or anything that Trump does?

yes, only because his margin for error was so slim. man that interviewer was giving him the stink-eye even before he tongued her.

So...how do we get normal people to run for President?

But they are the greatest adjectives. He has the best words.

So, it looks like the prediction markets have settled in giving Trump something like 36-38% chance, heading into the first debate.

I think the debate is too slippery a point to wager on (I have no idea how the debate might unfold), so I am out of the markets now. But I'm looking to get back in sometime soon after the post-debate move, whichever direction it is.

I think the best profit opening would be if Trump clears his low expectations and gets a bit of a bump in the markets and polls, short term. If shares of him move up to, say, 42... I'm looking to short him with some confidence, most likely.

So I guess moderators are there to nod sagely as candidates spew bullshit. Why not let the campaigns pick their own questions and be done with the pretense of a moderator?

Bring back the LOWV.

I understand it's a hot trend to demand that the moderator correct "lies," and that sounds fine on its surface. And for a select few of the potential lies to be told between these two, I suspect a moderator might be able to have specific facts or video on hand to make the case if it comes up.

But this idea of asking the moderator to serve as the on-the-fly ultimate arbiter of what is legit and not across dozens of topics and maybe even more odds-and-ends matters is asking an awful lot. If you give them the green light to step in and "correct" a candidate, the chances are awfully high that they get too deeply involved in a judgment call, come across looking unreasonably biased, or even just create a scapegoat window for the aggrieved candidate.

What other function are they reliably & reasonably going to serve?

Their only function should be to keep the proceedings moving, not to try (as some have done) to interject themselves into the middle of the proceedings.

They aren't umpires, nor do they have any remote business in attempting to be.
Ideally, when one of these speaking enagagements (cause they in no way ever resemble an actual 'debate') ends there'd be no one outside of their family who even remembered who the moderator was.

I don't want them fact checking in real time as they will have great problems with that, but I think it's reasonable to examine what the candidates have been saying for the past few weeks and to call out lies that have been previously documented. If you aren't going to do that you really encourage lying by both candidates.

Not to mention the post debate spin will always come down on the candidate that tries to challenge lies.

Instant Replay works for the NFL, I don't see why it couldn't work here. Put Gwen Ifill under the hood and after every segment have her assess points for outright lies. :D

Why even have a moderator? Have the candidates ask each other questions. The only external restrictions could be a timekeeper that shuts off microphones after allotted time for asking and answering is done.

I'd much rather know what Trump plans to ask Clinton and Clinton plans to ask Trump than whatever NBC News decides is worth asking.

The latest polling is consistent with a Clinton lead of only ~1% nationally. State firewall breaking up. Trend lines awful.

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) September 26, 2016

I know I mentioned this here to some degree about the "undecideds" a few pages back. This comes on FB this morning from a friend of mine who was formerly #NeverTrump. Sounds like he is #OKMaybeTrump now.

If, as I've suspected, a significant number of the "undecideds" are really "Republicans at heart who can't stand Trump," then the race being close could give him significant momentum with that crowd. (It's nice and fashionable to be #NeverTrump when he appears to have no chance, but will they resist a plausible opportunity to stop HRC?)

And 538's projections are based upon what they think is going to happen between now and November (which is the correct way to look at it, of course). But their "if the election was held today" metric has Trump with a 55% chance to win.

That campaign staff shakeup Trump made in September, and how things have gone for him since, definitely has to put to rest the "Trump doesn't want to win" theories that were floating around then.

Edit: I think the moral here is sell the Dems on predicit when they start talking about the end of the Republican party and such. Though in this election, maybe the next easy money is selling Trump.

Why the new polls released on Monday are such bad news for Hillary Clinton https://t.co/VczYOWn4tK pic.twitter.com/IoGP5DjuNC

— Chris Cillizza (@TheFix) September 26, 2016

...or not. Polling today seems to have moved the market to about 40% for Trump. I am too uncertain to be in the market today, but I will still be looking to buy in on about Wednesday, I think.

If I'm reading that correctly -- and I think I am -- then I'd say that actually bodes well for HRC.

Conventional wisdom, afaik, is that the easiest/most reliable vote to actually get to the polls is the one that's "anti" something.

Pro-anything fades a lot easier than anti.

For Clinton supporters who need a little catharsis: If You Vote For Trump, Then Screw You | GQ

My favorite part:


On a more depressing note: The Future of America Is Being Written In This Tiny Office - The Huffington Post

MSNBC catches flak for offering keys to debate for Trump, Clinton | TheHill

"Get Those Jokes Off"

“Well, he’s got a group of trusted folks around him, and he’s studying, and he’s preparing, and they’re going through hypotheticals, and what scenarios might come up, and he’s very comfortable. He did a great job in our primary debates. He’s also been through fourteen seasons and season finales. I mean he’s. He will be prepared. He’s always showed up for the big dance, and he will be prepared, and he will be ready to go tonight.”--Reince Priebus

For tonight's event

I really don't deserve to have a vote in this or any election - I couldn't last 2 minutes of the debate before hitting mute.

"our jobs are fleeing the country" *click*

Did he really just say that climate change is a hoax created by China?

No, she said he did.

Hillary said her job plan will create 10 million jobs.

I went outside to smoke. I returned.

Hillary said her job plan will create 10 million jobs.

Yeah, I hit submit too quickly on that one. Here's the background on that one:

Yes, Donald Trump did call climate change a Chinese hoax | PolitiFact

LOL

My wife just did a facepalm and feels bad for Lester.

I feel like trump could literally say anything and it won't matter. I think Hillary's strategy of getting him to act like a dick the opposite of what has to happen. I think trying to neuter him would be a better strategy.

Attacking Trump's business and not paying is a good tact.

I don't think that was her strategy, he has pretty much acted that way his entire campaign.

This and the tax returns was a good 1-2 punch, Trump was aimless and reeling in his response (probably the most I have seen him like that during this entire process).

Also, Hillary's answering of the e-mail issue was effective, Trump did not have a great follow up.

I think Trump is performing as best as can be expected so don't think its hurting him (so far).

It's a unique election. A performance like this would sink a normal candidate, but with Trump, the debate could be a distant memory 72 hours from now.

It is with the betting markets. So far at Betfair, Clinton has climbed from 63.1% chance of winning at the start of the debate to 65.6%

From where I'm sittin', she's wiping the floor with him so far.

I do think Trump has a higher ceiling if he, you know, prepared for the debate like it was something important. Too much time simply reacting and not talking about his own policies. Hillary is doing a good job leading him in, but her speech patterns are robotic and lack fluidity.

He wandered all around the city of Chicago on that one question.

Trump's really backing the "stop and frisk"? ALL-IN

Trump should stop trying to win black votes. He sounds insincere to me.

He was more effective attacking her "30 years" of ineffectiveness.

Hillary just dropped the mic with that debate preparing response.