Benjamin Franklin

Trump: I'm going to hit harder in the next debate. That is a loser's statement. 2000 Gore (it hurt a lot) 2004 3rd party 2008 3rd party 2012 Romney

He's got to be really careful with that. At any moment, Clinton can turn to him and say, "Quick Donald: Who's the president of Syria, what is the branch of Islam most widely practiced in Iran, and is Afghanistan a democracy?" His likely response in that moment will be 1- I'm not going to play your games, 2- I will hire the right people, believe me, who can answer those kinds of questions, or 3- How about we talk about Gennifer Flowers instead? One thing you can count on is his inability to answer those questions and he will look like a dunderhead, even to his base. I'll be shocked if Hillary doesn't have that gun loaded at every debate and is just waiting to pull it out. Most candidates don't do the "pop quiz" because it can backfire against a skillful person but there's no way Trump can keep up with that. Every time he speaks about foreign policy, she should interject, "And the leader of that country is...? And the party in control of that area is...?"

I thought Holt did well. His marching orders were to stay out of the way and not overshadow the candidates. He did that perfectly and only called out some of the larger lies like "I was against the war"--which by the way is such a who-gives-a-f$#% issue at this point that Trump's handlers should tell him to stop talking about it. He's just too dumb to let it go. Trump was awful in the Rep debates. He sat back and let the big boys and girl talk about serious matters and occasionally swooped in with one-liners. I'm surprised he did as well as he did last night. He's going to lose all 3 presidential debates from an objective perspective--it's just a matter of how well he holds up in each one. Last night, I thought he held up as well as he could. Clinton won't waiver on her debate strategy. She will keep talking above his ability to engage. It's a smart tactic and at some point, Trump may have an Aleppo moment. If he does, she will flay him. That's his biggest challenge. If he has to go deep on one of these debates and stumbles, Clinton will be merciless. So last night was a win for him. He avoided that moment. "He looked far more presidential than most thought he could be" is hardly a ringing endorsement.

I feel badly for Romney, truly. I voted for him, liked him, and this election he's replaced by Trump. What awful timing.

Very little oxygen on Titan. No explosion.

Class war talk is the left's bread and butter. She's not the broken record that Bernie was but she's still going to sign the song. Heard a talking head make a point this morning that made sense: Hillary (no stranger to arrogance and being in charge) acted more like she was in charge and Trump spent too much of the night reacting to her with the interjections and "wrong"s. That put her in a position of power in the debate--important presidential optics. He'd have been better off listening to her entire answers, then responding. I expect he'll do that more next time.

Neither hurt their bases, nor would I expect them to even if they proclaimed love of Hitler. I am curious if either one swayed third party people. The polls this week are likely to show a slight uptick for Clinton there but I'd guess things remain pretty steady. That so many are mentioning the "wroooooooong" moment shows how juvenile he's made the process.

They can only have bullet points in a debate and she's a big government socialist so of course some was mostly big government garbage. Debates haven't truly been debates in 20+ years but merely trading pre-prepared responses. The point is that he's in the sandbox and doesn't' even have bullet points while she's in the college lounge smoking weed and debating 18th centry french poetry with stuck up know it alls--no debate was possible between them because they can't match intellects. "Wrong, wrong, very wrong" is 2nd grade and I believe he's afraid to get into deep issues because she can run circles around him. Trump has 100 Johnson "Aleppo" issues in him and we all know it. He needs to steer clear of those moments.

The 3rd party numbers have never been higher and they usually poll about 2x of how they pull the lever. So these are invested voters. So there are a TON of swing voters out there and they are following the election closely. MAke no mistake: Clinton and Trump want those votes desperately. He's afraid to go after her because he can't keep up. Unless he plays below the belt, and of course Donald couldn't resist a round of self congratulations for holding back on indecent attacks. What a guy. Trump couldn't keep up with Christie and Fiorina in the debates--he certainly can't keep up with Clinton's intellect. His only goal last night was to not hand over a massive soundbyte moment. Mission accomplished on that.

Trump brought up Rosie O'Donnell, Howard Stern, Hillary's appearance, and more or less implied wanting to discuss infidelity. In a presidential debate. If only he'd brought up his schlong size, he'd have hit for the cycle. Trump's base isn't moving. Hillary's base isn't moving. They are fighting for the large third party vote. None of us third party people are going for Trump after tonight but neither are we likely to break for Clinton. Both came out of tonight only serving red meat to their bases. Trump didn't say much but speak in soundbytes. Hillary doled out the usual serving of motherment. A miss by both of them.

The Republican is against free trade. The Democrat is labeled as more pro war than the Republican. WTF is happening?

Really? That's great. From the field to the nosebleeds in a wave. Someone has to take control of the fanbase. Those front row people might be plants to get the stadium rocking. Nothing worse than going to the games and sitting in the box. Everyone just on their butts the entire time. Awful game experience.

If you want Bills fans to model themselves on Eagles fans, that's on you.

That's awesome and a sign of a great fan base. Good on ya Bills fans.

Strange thing happens in the bleachers. When something happens, the crowd rises and cheers. You're up and down the entire time. Just like, wait for it, a football game. Except when something happens and they stand, just like what happens at football games. Is this so hard to understand? Nothing is changing here people except that between when the Bills were last good and people stood in 1995 and the current run of not-completely-blowing-chunks performances, there was not a lot to stand for. When you go to a football game, you do a lot of standing. It's just how it is. In Buffalo and everywhere. If you don't want to stand and don't qualify for the special needs seating, stay home. This is not rude but a fact. Things I don't recommend if you can't stand for 40 minutes: climbing a mountain full court basketball long walks stand up desks yoga attending a football game above high school level

You can SIT any time. NFL games have seats for the long down times. When things get interesting, you stand. This is how you do football fandom. There's a nice comfy recliner waiting for you at home if you want to sit for 3.5 hours.

What slays me is when the Bills QB is going to execute a sneak and he stands over the center for 20 seconds, letting the entire defense get ready for the play. When Brady sneaks, he walks up the line like he's about to set up the defense then bends to take the snap on one. That half a second jump the offense gets is always enough to get them the yard.

I've seen you my fellow Bills fans. You could use a little time on your feet. Some events you have to stand for. Golf is a standing spectator sport. So is NFL football, for any game or team worth watching. Trying to change it now because a minority of fans can't get onto their feet for a little while is absurd. If you can't stand for a while during an NFL game, stay home. It's not a huge burden.

Was at Eagles Bills last year and the fans did the normal, rise for big plays, sit for the boring parts.

At football games you sometimes will find yourself standing. If someone doesn't want to stand and can't get access to the handicap seating, then they shouldn't go to the game. It's not rude. It's a fact. I'm not saying you should stay home but if you come to the game, you should be prepared to stand. If you're sitting in the stadium, the team is sucking balls (and yes, that's been an all-too-frequent way to spend the games for the last two decades).

All turnovers automatically reviewed.

He won't be in the lineup on week 5. He's not in practice because he's not allowed to be and he's in rehab. He won't be able to walk out of rehab onto an NFL football field so no, I don't expect him in week 5. Maybe a little action in week 6. Starting after the bye. The good news (great news) is that the D-line has been playing great. Edit: GG is right that he's not in inpatient. I see that originally he was going to do that but he changed to outpatient. So he might be in better shape by week 5. Still don't expect much for a few weeks.

Yes people, when you go to NFL games, you will end up standing. If you want to sit, go to the local bocce match. I hear they have barnburners in Delaware Park.

You have to understand: 99% of the board here thinks that the Pats win because of [insert conspiracy in support of Pats] in the same way your home base thinks that [Goodell/boogeyman-du-jour] is out to ruin the dynasty. Our stupidity > your stupidity but neither fan base is looking proud in these dumb moments.

He's a whiner or he shouldn't attend the game and sit with the people who will stand. Football stadiums aren't for everyone.