Snappy Debate Reactions To Stupid Debate

Or stupid debate reactions to stupid debate. Yeah, mostly that.

The results are in, and based on my scientific knowledge of reading Twitter, Americans are mostly just fucking relieved that we may have seen the last Donald Trump appearance in a nationally televised debate. That sounds right to me, so I'm going to mark that one down as factual and confirmed.

"Sounds right to me" was also the judgment of the Commander in Chief, who comforted himself by retweeting Twitter surveys by people and outlets who love Trump, which mean nothing whatsoever because they're answered by followers who already love Trump. (And yes, astute readers, that "who won" is in bold means he was searching for the phrase "who won" and then retweeting the ones he liked.)

We suppose we should thank Trump for providing a preview of how actual election results may look if he's ever in a position to run for a third term.

 Most snap polling showed viewers saying they thought Biden did better in the debate, which data nerd Nate Silver noted is pretty typical as Election Day gets close:

The margin here is close enough to the overall margin in the horse race than I wouldn't expect too much change in t… https: //t.co/wqYz5wK9kc

— Nate Silver (@Nate Silver) 1603425410.0 

But what about 2016, people will ask, and that's when we remind you that the national polling was pretty close to the popular vote, but that's not how the Electoral College math works out. Also never mind because we're looking at reactions to last night's debate, not replaying Election Night 2016 like a common Donald Trump.

Oh, yes, there was one snap poll that showed Trump "won" the debate: An unscientific online poll of Fox News viewers that was about as statistically sound as a Twitter survey, but nonetheless was touted on air by Sean Hannity without any indication that it wasn't a real poll. Eric Trump was duly impressed!

🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 https: //t.co/C6HRtPW4Mz

— Eric Trump (@Eric Trump) 1603424345.0 

Trump's other son went on Fox and didn't sound the least bit like a rabid squirrel huffing speedballs. As somebody pointed out on Twitter, if you watch with the sound off, you'll think the video is sped up.

A very animated Don Jr. is on Fox whining out the same talking points that got his father dunked on during the deba… https: //t.co/86r4Plc0lg

— Acyn Torabi (@Acyn Torabi) 1603423957.0 

(Fact check: we know one does not "huff" speedballs. They are properly chugged, from a beer stein.)

In other debate reactions, the Grey Lady offered this remarkably Cillizzaesque take:

The final debate between President Trump and Joe Biden was civil, calm, sedate, substantive (at times) and, almost,… https: //t.co/NSlZ6Mmf0V

— The New York Times (@The New York Times) 1603462506.0 

And yes, the actual article is every bit as painfully both-sided as the tweet, so no blaming the social media team this time. Trump, we learn "landed his 'all talk, no action' punch" against Biden, but he also "got lost in a cul-de-sac of obscurity." Feh.

For the best take on Trump's "new" tone, though, we'll go with Chicago Tribune columnist Rex Huppke:

Demonstrating a striking change in tone from the first presidential debate, Trump did not come across as a writhing, angry body inhabited by the spirit of Charles Manson. Instead, he took on the more affable demeanor of a writhing, angry body inhabited by the spirit of Charles Manson on a day when Manson didn't interrupt people quite so much.

Former Fox News yacker Megyn Kelly, who helped Trump fuel his base's rage by suggesting in the first GOP debate of 2016 that he might be a tad sexist, thought Trump was wonderful last night, because you couldn't see him bleeding from his wherever:

Trump won this debate, handily. Biden wasn’t a force at all. Trump was substantive, on-point, well-tempered. Defini… https: //t.co/pXx7hCsrmH

— Megyn Kelly (@Megyn Kelly) 1603420545.0 

GOP pollster Frank Luntz managed to find some "undecided" swing state voters who had thoughts about Trump's New Tone:

My focus group’s words to describe Trump tonight: • “Controlled” • “Reserved” • “Poised” • “Con artist” • “Surprisi… https://t.co/tcS1sGgUha

— Frank Luntz (@Frank Luntz) 1603423526.0 

A very poised con artist indeed!

Ann Coulter insisted that a New York Times   fact check was terribly terribly hypocritical in declaring Trump's weird obsession with wind turbines "false," because look right there, the things do so kill birds. That may have been undercut by her partial inclusion of that same piece's clarification that wind farms are among the least deadly human-caused threats to wild birds.

Say, shall we see what's more deadly to birbs?

Birds die far more frequently from collisions with buildings and cars, which each account for hundreds of millions of annual avian deaths. Cats are thought to fell some 2.4 billion birds a year . But not Thornton, he is an indoor cat. [ I for one am glad the Times pointed that out — Dok ]

And for that matter, Trump hadn't said the turbines kill birds; he said they "kill all the birds," which is a bit different, no?

For the real  big bird picture , here's the senior communication director for scientists at the Audubon Society:

I didn’t watch the debate but I understand wind power vs. birds came up (again). The biggest threat to birds is c… https: //t.co/oymLr9HBeF

— Nicolas Gonzalez (@Nicolas Gonzalez) 1603421969.0 

But we'd better keep fossil fuels that will hurry along mass extinctions, because Ann Coulter found a partial quote.

In other great reactions to the debate, old goatfucker Erick Erickson was glad to see the "real" Donald Trump show up to trounce Biden:

Last night's presidential debate was an actual, factual, normal presidential debate. The President remembered his key messaging and focus. Joe Biden managed to speak uninterrupted for two minutes without coming off as an insane guy. The moderator moderated. She even asked about the Hunter Biden story.

President Trump and his team should be proud of his final lifetime presidential debate performance. That is, actually, pretty incredible when you think about it. We won't see Donald Trump on a debate stage again.

Mind you, when Erick Erickson says we won't see Trump debate again, he's suggesting that's because Trump will serve another four years, not be retired by voters. We prefer to think voters will make sure Trump gets plenty of rest and all the time he wants to golf in Florida, and ... oh, Jesus, that doesn't preclude a second term either, does it?

[ Yahoo News / Newsweek / NYT / Chicago Tribune / Audubon ]

Yr Wonkette is entirely funded by reader donations. Please help us keep the servers humming and the writers paid!

 Do your Amazon shopping through this link, because reasons .