Why are so many people writing that Donald Trump was the winner of Wednesday's debate? Are they just on autopilot? I've seen no evidence, either anecdotal or in poll numbers, that he benefited in any way from his absence.
He might not have been harmed by his absence either, but that hardly means he "won."
If you were already up on your opponents by 40 points, the difference between "not being harmed" and "winning" is kinda academic.
Probably it's the complete failure of any serious appearance of an anti-Trump vibe.
When they all blindly pledge devotion to the nominee whoever it may be, that's him winning.
He couldn't have survived being at the debate.
He would have taken flack for not agreeing to support the nominee.
He would have taken flack from Christie and others about his lies.
He was far better off not being there.
Also until the opposition drops down to one or two people, it is hard for him to lose.
👍👍👍👍
Why are so many people writing that Donald Trump was the winner of Wednesday's debate?
Is anyone actually confused about this?
Because it is in their interests that Don remain a viable-seeming candidate as long as possible. They are on the team, even if only on a contingent, deniable basis.
We have been watching this fucking game for almost a decade, and it is well past time to stop pretending it is anything other than what it is.
He "won" in the sense that he wasn't seriously attacked by anybody.
Ir's like leading the game at halftime by 21 points, you come out in the third quarter and kick off. The opponent gets a couple first downs and has to punt. That's a victory for you because you want to run the clock.
If the Luttig-Tribe piece can sway blue state SOSs to keep Trump's name off their ballots, Trump may be effectively blocked from the nomination. With the GOP's move towards "winner take all" primaries, they may unintentionally prevent the dilution of delegates that would have otherwise helped Trump survive.
I think it's merely based on no candidate in the debate really doing anything meaningful to raise their own profile. They were the ones that had to do something to close the gap, and they all failed, hence Trump won it.
He won because in a normal world, the other candidates would be trying to kick the living crap out of the frontrunner every chance they got, but in the bizzarro GOP MAGA world of today, they are all too chicken shit of Orange Jesus's followers to do that.
As others have noted, he “won” because no one made a showing that makes them a viable alternative. Likewise, no one did bad enough to start culling the crowd
Both of those help Trump in getting the nomination.
Ego, winning.
I think defining what "won" means is what matters. I think by any normal definition you can't win a debate you didn't participate in. But I think what people are saying is Trump "won" because:
1) virtually no one attacked him for anything including skipping the debate
2) none of those attacks had any resonance
3) no one in the debate stood out such that they seem to have any chance beating trump
So trump won because this seems to establish that there is reason trump needs to do any primary debates and can cruise to the nomination. I guess we'll see in coming weeks if that's true.
1) and 2) are inconsistent with one another.
It should be said that a "winner" was Fox. I mean, their execs were begging Trump to show up fearing a ratings disaster and yet nearly 13 million tuned in which isn't a bad number to watch a bunch of also-rans.