Poll - Who won the first Trump/Clinton debate?
- Thread starter Billyd
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I think you're right. He tried being phony like her in the first debate, probably because he was told he had to. Hopefully, he won't believe the BS going around right now about him winning that debate, and will just be a real man next time.
If people really want to continue with a phony as they have been, then they are going to swallow even more of the Democrat line, and seal all our fates.
Thank God I am old, and will not have to live through much of the enslavement the majority of you are asking to have for the remainder of your lives. (Sort of like when the Israelites insisted on having a king.... so God let them go head-long into that horrible mistake.)
If people really want to continue with a phony as they have been, then they are going to swallow even more of the Democrat line, and seal all our fates.
Thank God I am old, and will not have to live through much of the enslavement the majority of you are asking to have for the remainder of your lives. (Sort of like when the Israelites insisted on having a king.... so God let them go head-long into that horrible mistake.)
CONSERVATIVE Arizona Republic, like the equally CONSERVATIVE Dallas Morning News endorses Hillary. They both know she is far more qualified than is Trump who is highly emotional, spews hate, and is totally unqualified for the job in the White House.
In your opinion,what do you think Donald will do next debate?
To be honest with you,If he loses again,I don't think he will be hurt beyond repair by It and I don't think Hillary's numbers will go up that much,
but If Donald wins,I think his numbers will go up significantly because the undecided really want to vote for him and not Hillary,I'm curious to see what happens next debate.
To be honest with you,If he loses again,I don't think he will be hurt beyond repair by It and I don't think Hillary's numbers will go up that much,
but If Donald wins,I think his numbers will go up significantly because the undecided really want to vote for him and not Hillary,I'm curious to see what happens next debate.
From the way he appeared, besides trying to play nice, I honestly do think he was under the weather. Maybe he had a bug, or something. So, if he is back to his regular alert self, and not snuffling half the night, I think he might just decide to do things his way, and let Chelsea worry about her own feelings when he treats her mother as a true equal who should get what she asks for, instead of acting like she's a delicate china doll he's not allowed to call out.
As an old political pol once told me, issues don’t decide elections. Personalities decide who wins and who loses. Never mind the future of social security. The winning candidate needs to know how to smile convincingly. We’ve got to like the person more than agree with how he or she stands on the issues.
[h=1]The Psychology of Voting[/h]
That’s because we are far more likely to turn out because we can’t stand someone than because we think one candidate is a really swell person.
That’s one of the conclusions of an ambitious study of voter attitudes spanning a 24-year period led by Jon A. Krosnick, professor of psychology and political science at Ohio State University.
Reacting to the Bad Guy
“People are more motivated by the threat of something bad than the opportunity for something good,” says Krosnick.
But the research also turns up this bit of surprising news: We really want to like these folks. The study shows that there is an element of optimism in how we approach politicians.
“Our work shows that people approach each new politician with hope and optimism that maybe this will be the hero they’ve been hoping for,” he says.
If it turns out that we can’t stand either candidate, we’re not very likely to vote because either way, we lose, and the dismal choice turns us off. And if we like both candidates about the same, we’re also less likely to vote because either way, we win.
So in order to have high voter turnout, we need a saint and a villain.
But apparently, what we’ve seen in the last few decades has done more to turn us off than fire us up. Following John F. Kennedy’s defeat of Richard Nixon in 1960, voter turnout declined streadily through 1988. It rose slightly again in 1992, and then fell again in 1996.
There are probably many reasons for the decline, but the researchers point out that the fire in the belly of most voters cooled significantly over the past four decades, with few candidates managing to raise passions either pro or con.
We have become, in a word, uninterested.
Mud-Slinging Works
The research also suggests that a lot of campaign managers are right about one thing: Negative advertising really works, provided it’s done with enough taste to keep the mudslinger from getting a bit tarnished by his or her own mud. It takes a touch of class to sling mud effectively.
The study, involving researchers from Princeton and Northwestern universities and the University of Chicago, builds upon data collected in face-to-face interviews with thousands of Americans over the course of many elections by the National Election Study. The ongoing study, which began at the University of Michigan in 1952, has been funded for the last 30 years by the National Science Foundation.
Results from that larger study are available to scholars across the country, and it is on that body of work that the researchers base their conclusions about why we bothered to vote at all during the years from 1972 through 1996.
The bottom line, Krosnick says, is we approach politicians the same way we approach other people and issues, like who we want to marry and which breakfast cereal we prefer. We want to give the other guy the benefit of the doubt, but if we feel betrayed, we want to throw the rascal out.
As an old political pol once told me, issues don’t decide elections. Personalities decide who wins and who loses. Never mind the future of social security. The winning candidate needs to know how to smile convincingly. We’ve got to like the person more than agree with how he or she stands on the issues.
Perhaps the most surprising result of the study is how we regard emerging politicians about whom we know very little. The study shows that most people approach a politician they don’t know the same way they approach anybody else.
“When people know nothing about a new person they are about to meet, they walk into that interaction slightly optimistically, hoping and expecting that the person will be pleasant, competent, enjoyable,” Krosnick says.
It doesn’t matter if the new person is a blind date or a presidential candidate. We still hope for a pleasurable experience. Maybe what that suggests is we really want to like each other, regardless of occupation.
Love/Hate at First Site
That first meeting, incidentally, turns out to be very important down the road. First impressions really do matter most.
The study shows that if people liked, or disliked, the candidate at the first encounter, that opinion proved really hard to change later on. That suggests that current marketing strategies for candidates — saving the big bucks for the end of the campaign — is dead wrong.
“Candidates tend to save their money so they can have the biggest blitzes of advertising at the end of the campaign, right before people vote, on the assumption that people will have forgotten everything they heard earlier,” Krosnick says. “Our results show that if you can spend the same dollar making a first impression on people, that will have more impact on their ultimate behavior than throwing in something at the last minute.”
But in the end, he adds, what really seems to make a difference is the success of one candidate at vilifying an opponent, without looking too nasty in the process.
“It’s not all that surprising that people put more weight on the failings of candidates than they do on the strengths of them,” Krosnick says.
In other words, it’s easier to cross someone off because there’s something about him or her that you can’t stomach than it is to search out the virtues that would make the candidate a good public servant. And as so many candidates have shown over the years, it’s pretty easy to stumble out there, giving voters an easy target.
So, George and Al, or Al and George, it appears that it’s your election to lose.
You’ll make it easier on us busy voters if one of you lays a giant egg sometime before the election. We may be basically optimistic, but if you give us a reason to hate you we will turn out in droves to blast you out of the sky. Unless, of course, the other guy lays an egg of equal stench. Then we will just stay away from the polling booth.
What a system. But as political commentator David Brinkley once noted, somehow it works.
[/FONT]
The Psychology of Voting - ABC News
Remember to not be irresponsible and do your homework on both sides. Dont just vote off of who is more polite.
[h=1]The Psychology of Voting[/h]
- By LEE DYE
[*=center]138SHARES- [FONT=trident !important]
That’s because we are far more likely to turn out because we can’t stand someone than because we think one candidate is a really swell person.
That’s one of the conclusions of an ambitious study of voter attitudes spanning a 24-year period led by Jon A. Krosnick, professor of psychology and political science at Ohio State University.
Reacting to the Bad Guy
“People are more motivated by the threat of something bad than the opportunity for something good,” says Krosnick.
But the research also turns up this bit of surprising news: We really want to like these folks. The study shows that there is an element of optimism in how we approach politicians.
“Our work shows that people approach each new politician with hope and optimism that maybe this will be the hero they’ve been hoping for,” he says.
If it turns out that we can’t stand either candidate, we’re not very likely to vote because either way, we lose, and the dismal choice turns us off. And if we like both candidates about the same, we’re also less likely to vote because either way, we win.
So in order to have high voter turnout, we need a saint and a villain.
But apparently, what we’ve seen in the last few decades has done more to turn us off than fire us up. Following John F. Kennedy’s defeat of Richard Nixon in 1960, voter turnout declined streadily through 1988. It rose slightly again in 1992, and then fell again in 1996.
There are probably many reasons for the decline, but the researchers point out that the fire in the belly of most voters cooled significantly over the past four decades, with few candidates managing to raise passions either pro or con.
We have become, in a word, uninterested.
Mud-Slinging Works
The research also suggests that a lot of campaign managers are right about one thing: Negative advertising really works, provided it’s done with enough taste to keep the mudslinger from getting a bit tarnished by his or her own mud. It takes a touch of class to sling mud effectively.
The study, involving researchers from Princeton and Northwestern universities and the University of Chicago, builds upon data collected in face-to-face interviews with thousands of Americans over the course of many elections by the National Election Study. The ongoing study, which began at the University of Michigan in 1952, has been funded for the last 30 years by the National Science Foundation.
Results from that larger study are available to scholars across the country, and it is on that body of work that the researchers base their conclusions about why we bothered to vote at all during the years from 1972 through 1996.
The bottom line, Krosnick says, is we approach politicians the same way we approach other people and issues, like who we want to marry and which breakfast cereal we prefer. We want to give the other guy the benefit of the doubt, but if we feel betrayed, we want to throw the rascal out.
As an old political pol once told me, issues don’t decide elections. Personalities decide who wins and who loses. Never mind the future of social security. The winning candidate needs to know how to smile convincingly. We’ve got to like the person more than agree with how he or she stands on the issues.
Perhaps the most surprising result of the study is how we regard emerging politicians about whom we know very little. The study shows that most people approach a politician they don’t know the same way they approach anybody else.
“When people know nothing about a new person they are about to meet, they walk into that interaction slightly optimistically, hoping and expecting that the person will be pleasant, competent, enjoyable,” Krosnick says.
It doesn’t matter if the new person is a blind date or a presidential candidate. We still hope for a pleasurable experience. Maybe what that suggests is we really want to like each other, regardless of occupation.
Love/Hate at First Site
That first meeting, incidentally, turns out to be very important down the road. First impressions really do matter most.
The study shows that if people liked, or disliked, the candidate at the first encounter, that opinion proved really hard to change later on. That suggests that current marketing strategies for candidates — saving the big bucks for the end of the campaign — is dead wrong.
“Candidates tend to save their money so they can have the biggest blitzes of advertising at the end of the campaign, right before people vote, on the assumption that people will have forgotten everything they heard earlier,” Krosnick says. “Our results show that if you can spend the same dollar making a first impression on people, that will have more impact on their ultimate behavior than throwing in something at the last minute.”
But in the end, he adds, what really seems to make a difference is the success of one candidate at vilifying an opponent, without looking too nasty in the process.
“It’s not all that surprising that people put more weight on the failings of candidates than they do on the strengths of them,” Krosnick says.
In other words, it’s easier to cross someone off because there’s something about him or her that you can’t stomach than it is to search out the virtues that would make the candidate a good public servant. And as so many candidates have shown over the years, it’s pretty easy to stumble out there, giving voters an easy target.
So, George and Al, or Al and George, it appears that it’s your election to lose.
You’ll make it easier on us busy voters if one of you lays a giant egg sometime before the election. We may be basically optimistic, but if you give us a reason to hate you we will turn out in droves to blast you out of the sky. Unless, of course, the other guy lays an egg of equal stench. Then we will just stay away from the polling booth.
What a system. But as political commentator David Brinkley once noted, somehow it works.
[/FONT]
The Psychology of Voting - ABC News
Remember to not be irresponsible and do your homework on both sides. Dont just vote off of who is more polite.
M
Hard to get a read on the polls ..the Rass poll shows Hillary gained some but the Sample increased its Democrats in the poll by about 15% from what I'm hearing by a reliable source on Twitter ...if that True ? (cant find out because they have it hid) Then Trump has increased in that poll as well, since the debate ... Lots of dirty stuff going on...if HRC had any real jump in polls ..it would be broadcast all over the news by now ...Looks like Trump got a good bump in the polls
M
Yea...like I said if its that one Rassmusen poll ? Then its clear they just added enough Dems to the sample ...But I went and looked to see the sample and you have to join their site before they will even show you the breakdown of who they polled ... If they really did add 15% more Dems to the sample ..Then trump won that poll too.