Stop-and-frisk as practiced in NYC was ruled unconstitutional "because it largely singled out black and Hispanic [young men]", just like he said.  Blanket statements of "constitutional" and "unconstitutional" are equally wrong, and Trump only came off worse there because he was the one saying that the practice that was found unconstitutional was a great thing.  Sometimes the moderator is biased, but sometimes "reality has a bias".  Trump was pretty much calling for an unconstitutional practice to be implemented nationwide, and as a moderator you can't just let that stand.  He didn't say "You were wrong" implying that Clinton was right; he just said "it was ruled unconstitutional because blah" and Trump cut him off before he could explain what he wanted to follow up on specifically. 

And I just want to note that his other question wasn't about Trump's support of the Iraq war specifically.  He asserted that it was a fact that he had supported the war before it began, and asked why his judgment on that issue was so much better than Clinton who also supported giving Bush the authority to go to war.  The fight over whether he had in fact supported it arose naturally out of that disagreement on a point of fact. 

(And, it seems, there is little evidence on the public record of what his opinion was before the war began.  What little evidence exists shows weak support of it, while he claims that after that interview but before the war he became strongly against it in private conversations.  It didn't take him very long to turn against the war, but I don't see evidence in his public comments to support the idea that he was strongly against it and had been for a while already.  It looked more to me like he gradually soured on the war as it bogged down, similar to the rest of America, but maybe the transition was faster than average for him.) 

I think that when he asked Clinton, "Do you think police are implicitly biased against black people?", that was just as tough a question as asking Trump about his judgment versus Clinton's in supporting going into Iraq (which he seemed to assert they both did).  Not a very hardball question IMO compared to some others, but Trump just exploded about it and Clinton was better able to deal with her question. 

3 to 0 or 4 to 1.  One-sided, still, yes.  I do think Trump is a bigger target considering all the crap that's come out of his mouth (all but one of those questions were on things he's said), but still one-sided.  He could have asked Clinton about the basket of deplorables.  But not 5 to 0. 

Well thought out post.

From someone who actually has debated, removing labels and all, it was clear to me Clinton practiced for hours for a traditional debate. Meanwhile, Trump came across as someone who skimmed policies and then winged it.

This worked in a crowded primary for him because he hammered the quick sound bites and got media buzz. Dragged out over longer time frame he faded and often seemed scattered and confused.

The big question is how much will debates matter in 2016? From what I'm seeing both sides seems to pound chest in victory or make excuses such as the microphone (really?) or the moderator. Very curious in polling data for the coming week.

I agree about the question about police bias. I didn't think about it when I saw it. She managed it very well, so at this time it did not appear as the tough question it is, considering her position and voter targets. So I'd agree on 4 to 1 !

Clearly, Trump before Irak didn't have a strong stand against it publicly (varying from mildly for to mildly against), be it for PR reason, or for not having really a stable opinion and then he claims he was strongly against in private, which is impossible to verify. But in this case, "you supported the war in Irak" as an opening sentence is more a troll than a unfalsifiable fact from a moderator. It's like if the question to Clinton started with "You did not show any support for the police in Charlotte.". You have to go against the question itself, which takes time and is harder, especially if you are interrupted. If he want to go with this style, if he want to push the candidate, I'm OK, just it has to be fair.

About Trump being a bigger target, I totally disagree. Benghazzi, the private server (having it, having it hacked, lying about it, and getting immunity for 5 persons of her team), DNC/Bernie scandal, the Clinton foundation, the multiple wars she supported (Irak, Syria, Libya), her 45 millions fortune built as a public servant, the attempt to cover Bill's affairs, etc... it's huge, really, you could talk about it 11 hours straight (and some did). I believe Trump is not even close to that, but strictly about the debate, Clinton is at the very least as big as a target.

I agree Trump didn't have a strong stand publicly.  But he was claiming that he DID have a strong stand publicly.  So the introduction to the question Holt wanted to ask was reasonable in saying "well actually you are on the record as being for the war and there is no evidence you were against it, so..." 

While we're on the subject, Clinton didn't exactly egg Bush on to go to war.  When she voted to authorize force, she said (and I quote an article on the subject that quoted her speech):  “Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first … I take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible. Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely and war less likely—and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause—I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go away with delay will oppose any United Nations resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.”

She added, “This is a difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make. Any vote that may lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction. … My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of preemption or for unilateralism or for the arrogance of American power or purpose.” A vote for the resolution, she argued, “is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our president. And we say to him: Use these powers wisely and as a last resort.”
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2016/02/hillary_clinton_told_the_truth_about_her_iraq_war_vote.html
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2002-10-10/html/CREC-2002-10-10-pt1-PgS10233-7.htm

Lastly, are you seriously suggesting I could not dig up as many outrageous acts by Trump?  He didn't even ask about the wall. 

(P.S.  Fortune built as a public servant?  Two minutes of Google shows an article with apparently good sources (Forbes etc.) showing that the Clintons left the White House with little money; that they've made massive amounts on bestselling books, giving speeches (which she's been criticized for but which can hardly be called corrupt), etc.; and I would personally speculate that Bill, having made more money, pays more of her living expenses, so she will have accumulated wealth more easily than if she was living alone.  And bringing up financial past deeds is hardly safe ground for Trump, what with his business bankruptcies, scams he's being sued over, etc.)

Neither candidate was really asked hardball questions. One of the candidates just happened to be completely unprepared.

http://qz.com/793034/debate-2016-what-were-the-questions-asked-in-the-first-debate/

But he didn't asked it this way but said "You supported the war in Irak", and that's a troll. I mean, the questions are prepared for a long time, reviewed, it's not by accident he didn't say it in the correct way you suggest. It's even more disturbing than that, because it adds up to Clinton's baits.

About the vote, at the end of the day she voted "To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq", I saw it as a disclaimer considering the fact that the probability that Iraq had WMD, or that they would oppose further inspections was about zero.

For Trump's outrageous acts, I'm not talking about quantity. Trump can (and indeed did) hundreds of stupid tweets and talks, it does not have the same impact. Currently, there are strong indications that laws does not apply to Clinton. Trump break some laws, at the scope of his somewhat unsignificant business, and he is sued accordingly.

PS: I wanted to imply that she did not get it from a salary, I already googled it. I'm talking about the fact that she get so much money from speeches we don't even know what they are about (Sanders asked to see them, he did not get them), we kind of know she does them for companies from Wall-Street, foreign companies, etc., but don't know exactly as it is not in his tax return. So yeah, it could be corruption indeed. Frankly, I don't think it can be anything else than corruption at a scale never seen before, but if we get back to the topic which is about the debate, a fair question would be : "You got 21 millions of dollars from speeches to the most critisized and influential companies, and we don't know the content and details. What proves it is not corruption ?". Personally, I don't care if it's safe ground for Trump or not.

We're going to have to just disagree on what constitutes "trolling" by a moderator in a debate. 

I don't really know why you are seeing corruption there.  To me, "I took their money to give a speech" and "I took their money to give a vote" are 100% different things.  The reason people got up in arms about it is because they wanted to see what exactly she was saying because they thought there might be some really juicy statements in there.  "I love you Goldman Sachs, keep it up, you're the best!"  Politically damaging but not corrupt. 

On Iraq:  the whole fight is about "who supported going to war and who opposed going to war", so the reasons she gave at the time for the vote are actually significant.  It doesn't let her off the hook by any means but it's different from saying she was in the front of the pack growling for war.  And for the same reason, Trump's false claims about publicly opposing the war are significant, and the fact that he is now playing up the supposed content of these private conversations should be treated with great suspicion for the same reason.  Even with corroboration from Hannity, I believe it wouldn't be the first time Sean Hannity's memories slanted the way he would like them to have been.  (E.g. Trump says a lot of things and Sean Hannity chooses to remember the right ones.)  Maybe I'm wrong about that; there are several pundits of his type out there and I don't know him, specifically, particularly well. 

As far as "quantity vs. quality", there is plenty to go after Trump for there too.  Advocating going to war over being taunted.  Thinking that attacking the military forces of another country wouldn't mean going to war.  The emails:  the FBI concluded that Clinton did not break the law.  She acted stupidly and arrogantly in a way that she should not have that nevertheless did not break the law.  At worst that makes her no worse than the way Trump seems to do business routinely.  I mean, with the number of times she's been investigated by Republicans over the course of DECADES, intensifying greatly over the last few years with Benghazi, don't you think they would have been happy to find lawbreaking? 

Sorry, that's an interesting debate but I'm a little bit short in time, so I'll focus on the last part.

About Clinton not breaking the law... I don't dismiss Trump said a good number of stupid or worrying things, that he has character flaws that are risky, that he did not prepare the debate enough and failed it, and I understand it's a problem enough for a lot of people to not only not vote for him, but also to not want him elected. So, don't dismiss Clinton is utterly crooked. Al Capone has a 30+ body count, he was known as the crime boss of Chicago, had many illegal business, and the only law he was ever been proved to break is tax laws, that just happens, proving is hard.

It's not by accident Clinton has been investigated for decades. Regarding FBI investigation, she had a server, lied about her understanding of confidential, she get a request to give data she just deleted the data, she get immunity for the 5 persons of her staff that deleted and lied, the immunity is not left despite they do not cooperate (some lies were proven), they have many elements that should lead not to a charge but to a prosecution, and they just do nothing. One of the reason why they can't prove anything is because a lot was deleted and everyone that could be convicted get immunity. Look at that if you have time.

She get millions for her or her foundation from the worst companies, worst countries, at time where some investigations, some deal are going on, and she just take it all. Look at just one case. Russia begin negociating to get a stake in Uranium One, and then the money start to flow to Clinton Foundation. Can you prove that Clinton did anything wrong ? Probably not. But Uranium One are not fools, they give 8 millions at this very time, and that is to get something. There is a conflict of interest because she is involved with the bid to approve the deal. She should not take the money, but she takes it. Bill Clinton also get 500.000 dollars for a speech in Moscow from a bank tied with government. And the deal is done, approved by the commity of foreign investment. Just look at it, that is disgusting. And that's why she is not 50 points ahead, she is terribly corrupted.

Trump did exactly what I said he would do and that's end up getting waxed in front of the entire world by an experienced politician. He's just a blow-hard celebrity running for an office that exceeds his intellect.

I also predicted that the polls would shift in Clintons favor after the first debate and never return... I'm 50% on my way to 100 on that one too.

I wish there was someone else apart from her to vote for though. She's a poor excuse for president. But when it's a reality TV celebrity that's running against her, it's almost a no contest come election time.

Trump is done.

Clinton has been investigated for decades as part of what she once called a "vast right wing conspiracy".  I think it would be more accurate to call what was going on in the 90s a vast right wing conspiracy theory.  There are people that actually believe she and her husband rival—if not exceed!—that body count attributed to Capone.  I personally think that this has made her somewhat paranoid on issues relating to her own privacy, and I see the email scandal in view of this interpretation of her motivations.  By no means does it excuse her behavior, but she wasn't selling state secrets to the Russians or whatever. 

I should note that when you say she deliberately deleted emails after being ordered to produce them, the FBI director said that the person who deleted the emails said (after having been granted immunity) that he had been ordered to delete them previously, then panicked when he realized the emails were being demanded and rushed to delete them, and that there was no evidence contradicting this claim.  Now, I agree that this account should not be viewed uncritically, but neither should we assume that he must be lying.  If he had indeed been told to delete them, he would plausibly have been afraid of consequences if it came out that they had not been deleted.  I would say that the plausibility of this claim depends on how much evidence we have of his communications.  That is, if we have a whole pile of phone records and emails and so on and there is nothing in them, then it is more likely than if we don't have much at all one way or the other. 

But let's look at another angle.  You said, "One of the reason why they can't prove anything is because a lot was deleted", but haven't they pretty much recovered the emails?  https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/4g4noe/facts_around_hillarys_30000_deleted_personal/ 

The uranium mine deal is quite concerning, to be honest.  It looks like the vast majority of the money came from the guy who used to own the company before the Russians got it.  Wikipedia has this to say about the circumstances surrounding that:  "In June 2007, Giustra joined with Clinton to launch the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership to address global poverty. Giustra committed $USD 100 million plus half of what he makes in the resource industry for the rest of his life."  (the $31 million figure you probably saw in stories is due to that the $100 million was only promised, not delivered fully at the time.  I don't know how much of it has been given since.  Some of the other donations mentioned might be more of this.)  This does not seem like a quid pro quo payoff to me.  Nevertheless, given the size of the donations, if I was going to wonder about anything, I'd wonder about the relationship between this man's business interests and the Clintons, but he sold out of this uranium company in 2007, before any of the Rosatom stuff even happened.  So for that reason I think the specific allegations are not very likely.  More facts available here.  There is also no evidence from what I got by skimming articles that Clinton even participated in negotiations whatsoever.  The leading accusation seems to be that she would have interfered to oppose the deal if not for this, but stood by and did nothing instead while the State Department and all the other agencies approved the deal by themselves.  From what I understand, this argument is based on the fact that a Chinese deal was nixed a couple years previously, but others have argued that we were trying to be chummy with Russia at the time, so perhaps that factored into the decision-making of the non-Clinton people who approved the deal. 

P.S.  What actually pisses me off the most right now is how so many people in the State Department knew Clinton was doing this (non-standard and potentially unsecure emails) and yet did nothing about it for years and years.  I mean I know it was probably like "it was hard anough to get Grandma to use a cell phone, don't even try to get her on a smart phone", but that's no excuse at this level of government.  If you really want to know as much as possible about the events leading up to and surrounding this email scandal I just found a site that appears exhaustive and does not seem to be the work of a wacko. 

P.P.S.  We all know about old people and technology, but we seldom stop to think about the fact that our government is full of old people.  Scary.