Resultatet af debatten er slet ikke så ensidigt pro Harris, som Fake-News-MSM påstår – hvilket næppe overrasker dig !
Og Reuters er jo ikke ligefrem pro-Trump , læs stærkt Trunp-hadende !
Taget herfra
Like many other news services, Reuters decided to have a focus group of undecided voters who could react to the debate.
If Reuters was hoping to prop up Kamala Harris, then things did not go as planned. The majority of the group swung to Trump after the debate.
Predictably, the media rushed to declare Kamala the winner, but voters saw something else.
From Reuters:
Some undecided voters not convinced by Harris after debate with Trump
Kamala Harris was widely seen as dominating Tuesday’s presidential debate against Republican former president Donald Trump, but a group of undecided voters remained unconvinced that the Democratic vice president was the better candidate.
Reuters interviewed 10 people who were still unsure how they were going to vote in the Nov. 5 election before they watched the debate. Six said afterward they would now either vote for Trump or were leaning toward backing him. Three said they would now back Harris and one was still unsure how he would vote.
Harris and Trump are in a tight race and the election will likely be decided by just tens of thousands of votes in a handful of battleground states, many of whom are swing voters like the undecided voters who spoke to Reuters.
Although the sample size was small, the responses suggested Harris might need to provide more detailed policy proposals to win over voters who have yet to make up their minds.
Ed Morrissey of Hot Air has a theory about what happened here:
Harris came into it as a cipher, and that’s the way she left it as well, thanks in large part to the efforts by ABCs moderators. They rarely pressed her for specifics on policies, and only lightly challenged her wide-ranging flip-flops over the last eight weeks or so. Only a couple of days after finally producing an issues page and nearly two months of refusing to talk to reporters (except for 26 minutes on CNN), undecided voters wanted some “meat on the bones,” as one focus-group member told Reuters.
And they didn’t get it. Harris may have succeeded in zinging Trump, but at least in this group, her strategy to skate on issues and just disqualify Trump failed to land.
That’s pretty sound analysis.
Taget herfra
Hvis Trump får 2/3 af de uafhængige stemmer i November, så HAR han vundet valget !!
Men husk at det kun er 10, der er spurgt …
Selv CNNs Jack Tapper indrømmer at Kamala Harris IKKE svarede på spørgsmålene !
Taget herfra
Hell has frozen over.
CNN’s Jake Tapper blasted Kamala Harris for dodging multiple debate questions on Tuesday night.
It was 3 against one on Tuesday night during the presidential debate.
The debate moderators fact-checked President Trump and allowed Kamala Harris to lie.
Jake Tapper played several clips from Tuesday night’s debate showing Kamala Harris punting and dodging debate questions.
“Vice President Harris began the debate by punting the first question on the economy,” Jake Tapper said as he showed a clip of ABC moderator Jason Muir asking Harris if she believes Americans are better off now than they were four years ago.
Harris dodged the question and laughably claimed she was raised as a “middle-class kid.”
“It went on from there. Despite the economy being the number one issue facing the country…she reverting to her talking points,” Tapper said.
“On the border, another vulnerable issue for Harris, she also dodged,” Tapper said as he played a clip of Jason Muir asking her if she would have “done anything differently” from Biden on this.
Kamala Harris once again dodged.
“When asked how she would break through the Israel-Hamas war stalemate, she said this,” Tapper said as he played a clip of Harris obfuscating.
“Okay, but again, how?” Jake Tapper said.
Taget herfra
Megyn Kelly er rasende !
Den imbecile kommunist David Trash har af uransagelige årsager fået stillet spalteplads til rådighed på Altinget.dk, hvor han har “lavet” en “analyse” af gårsdagens “debat”.
Den såkaldte “analyse” består udelukkende af en skidtspand af de værste ukvemsord, som Trash tømmer ud over Trump.
Det er simpelthen udenfor enhver fatteevne, hvordan såkaldte “seriøse” medier kan anvende dette stykke fæces af en “journalist”.💩
Han har vist ikke arbejdet som egentlig journalist, siden arbejdstilsynet i en rapport nærmest direkte kaldte ham for en psykopat, da de på forespørgsel af medarbejderne besøgte Information. Han er den chefredaktør der har haft titlen i kortest tid, i bladets historie. I deres seneste jubilæumsskrift var han end ikke nævnt, hvilket han var meget fortørnet over, det var der det kom frem, hvordan arbejdstilsynet havde beskrevet ham og hans ledelsesstil.
Det er så endnu mere uforståeligt at S ledelsen accepterede at han blev opstillet under deres fane, da de jo risikerede at skulle døjes med ham i folketingsgruppen.
Seriøs? Altinget?
Vinder Trump? Ja hvis valget ikke bliver” ordnet”! Det ser ud til at spændet imellem kandidaterne er “håndterbart”. Så nej Trump vinder ikke!
Berlingske beskriver også en fokusgruppe, der overværede debatten. Fokusgruppen bestod af 7 demokratiske vælgere, 5 svingvælgere og 5 republikanske vælgere,
Analytikeren, der testede fokusgruppens reaktioner under debatten, var » virkelig, virkelig overrasket over, i hvor høj grad de uafhængige vælgere støttede Trump«.
Nej, det havde hun da slet ikke forventet.
Det, der var så virkelig, virkelig overraskende for analytikeren, var overhovede IKKE overraskende, men drejede sig om, at de såkaldt uafhængige vælgere reagerede postivt på Trump, da han fortalte om sine økonomiske planer, og da han angreb Harris for ikke at have stoppet invasionen af ulovlige immigranter.
Enhver med lidt sund fornuft i behold kan se, at Trump har ret.
At analytikeren alligevel var virkelig, virkelig overraskende, fortalte i stedet noget om analytikeren selv – om hendes ekstreme ensidighed.
Analytikeren tilhører tydeligvis det mediepolitiske kompleks, der bakker op om Demokraternes Hollywood-strategi: ‘Orange man bad – Black women good”, et skuespil om de gode mod de onde.
Mens de uafhængige vælgere ikke hopper i den barnlige fælde, men interesserer sig for politik.
Seriøs? Altinget?
Hvad menes med “Seriøs? Altinget?”
Endnu en gang:
Hun er ikke “black”. Hun er 4/8 Indisk, 3/8 vestindisk og 1/8 hvid. Så “black”? NEJ!
“Brown” – lad gå, hvis man tager efter hudfarven. Ellers: As White as Washington.
Hej Bastardo
Alle ved godt, at hun ikke er black. Men Demokraterne og dermed medierne opfører dette narrespil.
Dermed dækker disse narrespillere også over, at Harris ved at kalde sig selv black, helt sikkert altid har misbrugt det, de derovre kalder “affirmative action”, en praksis der havde til formål at fremme ligestilling ved at give fordele og karriere til underrepræsenterede grupper, herunder black people (afroamerikanere).
Og som Harris selvfølgelig igen prøver at misbruge ved at kalde sig sort præsidentkandidat. For det har jo altid virket for hendes karriere.
Nu har Højesteret så sat en kæp i hjulet på dette cirkus.