Last night marked the first of three presidential debates in the United States, allowing voters to see Secretary Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump go head to head in a series of discussions about their policy proposals. The debates, though, aren’t just about policy, but bearing: As we watch people on stage, we imagine them acting in the office of the presidency, and see how they perform under intense pressure. In fact, there’s considerable debate, so to speak, over how much the debates really affect voter opinion — and polls in coming days will provide useful evidence there — but it’s often the look, rather than the substance, that seems to strike voters, as seen with the infamous makeup debacle in the Nixon/Kennedy debate.
The differences between the major party candidates could not have been more starkly highlighted than they were last night in a debate where at times it was clear the moderator had utterly lost control over not just the candidates, but the audience. The prime offender and driver of the chaos, of course, was Donald Trump, which comes as a surprise to no one. The question wasn’t whether he would act like a spoiled child throughout the debate, but how much of a spoiled child he would be. While he didn’t scream for ice cream or whine about needing to go to the bathroom, he accomplished virtually everything else.
Secretary Clinton came to the debates calm, collected, and carrying a formidable array of facts and policy proposals — and from the start, she gamely attempted to stick to talking about substantive policy, rather than indulging her opponent. Trump, on the other hand, puffed and bellowed from his side of the stage, repeatedly attempting to interrupt her, sighing dramatically, huffing, muttering ‘wrong’ when she said things he disliked, and trying to argue with her when she stated basic facts, particularly when those facts were direct quotes of things he had actually said on the public record. While she articulated core policy components and brought up critical issues like systemic racism, the for-profit prison system, and national security, Trump harped about emails, Benghazi, stolen jobs, his popularity among Black voters (he routinely polls in the single digits), and whether the United States is good at ‘cyber.’
There were times when Trump’s stream of consciousness ramblings interrupted by continuous sniffing were so perplexing that even Secretary Clinton seemed momentarily taken aback — my personal favourite moment of the debate may have been when he informed her that she had been fighting Daesh for her ‘entire adult life,’ a claim that was dryly fact checked by publications everywhere. (Vox: ‘LOL NO.’) There was also, however, the moment when she virtually cracked her knuckles and set to as she said ‘Woo! OKAY!’ and proceeded to decimate his arguments.
Moderator Lester Holt appeared at times to just give up, allowing the candidates to engage in rapidfire back and forth that violated the mutually agreed-upon rules of the debate, and ignoring the audience when it cheered at various points during the discussion. That’s a pity, because when he was on point, he was very on point. On multiple occasions, he repeatedly pressed Trump to answer questions, and even engaged in a bit of the dreaded fact checking when he corrected patently false claims.
The highlight of the debate, however, only arrived at the bitter end, when Holt provided an opening for Secretary Clinton to talk about Trump’s sexism, which she did. At length. With relish. And a cool, wry disposition that stood in stark contrast to Trump’s endless fussing — right after he said that his ‘winning asset’ was his ‘temperament’ and that he’d made a superior president. To see a man repeatedly belittle and denigrate a former Secretary of State and then announce that she’s ‘not nice’ for running political ads is quite a thing to behold, and her restraint throughout the debate was admirable. At times, it felt like watching a very tired and very frustrated nanny attempting to patiently wait out a tantrum. Trump’s heated insistence that he’s not sexist in the least was nearly disproved by his treatment throughout the debate; including his snide use of her title when he felt like looking magnanimous (he switched to ‘Hillary’ for much of the debate).
So who won? The answer should be obvious. One party in the debate was organised, prepared, articulate, thoughtful, and sometimes quite funny. The other arrived and started spouting talking points and rambling while almost immediately getting so upset that self-control was evidently impossible. In terms of debating skills — bringing up actionable points, accurately hitting an opponent on weak points, highlighting the differences between the two candidates — Secretary Clinton clearly won the evening. But the very points that make her a winner are the things that some people are going to attack: Intellectual elitism, being ‘rude’ to her opponent by fact checking his statements, ‘not responding to his points’ by refusing to be baited into playing his games. As a woman, she’ll also be enduring the usual stream of commentary: She’s smug, she’s shrill, she shrieks, she’s patronising. And she’s a Clinton, which cements the problem.
We may see some post-debate poll shift. I’m not convinced that it will be significant, or lasting; the debates don’t have the kind of unifying force that the national conventions do. It’s unclear how many undecided voters really watch the debates, and the ideological differences, along with the disparity in qualifications, between the two candidates are so extreme that this is not, as you have repeatedly heard, a typical election. What we do know is that the polling gap is shrinking, and somehow we have entered a world in which an overinflated orange toad is virtually tied in the polls with a highly qualified, extremely talented person with cogent, thoughtful policy proposals.
Welcome to America, where nothing makes sense anymore.
Image: US Embassy Kabul Afghanistan/Creative Commons
I choose Hilary clinton.