There are a few ways to talk about a debate, but let's start with the basics: Hillary Clinton won this debate. Donald Trump held his own for about 20 minutes, and then fell apart as Clinton steadily laid traps for him and watched him walk into them. She didn't knock anything out of the park — no home runs — but debates are such that planning, preparation and practice show results.
Numbers
One thing I watch is interruptions: It means you feel you're losing, so you have to interject. And that means Trump lost. By many counts, Trump interrupted her three times more often (51 to 17) over the course of the night. By my count (I followed the transcript and the video) is 46 interruptions to 8, but I'm also not counting interruptions by the two candidates of poor Lester Holt. In which case, add roughly 15-20 to Trump and another 5-10 to Clinton.
Speaking time can go either way. Think about it like football: Sometimes the winning team controls the clock, but other times, if they are scoring easily, the losing team has more time of possession. But by speaking time, Trump had the advantage, talking for roughly 5 minutes more than Clinton in the debate.
I also look to the use of "filler words." The best example is "very." It is an adverb that journalists never use because it means nothing: When you say something is "very X," how much more X is it? One report said that Trump used the word "very" 57 times in the debate. They are wrong. He used it 71 times. Clinton used it 12 times. (Lester Holt used it 6 times, mostly saying "Very quickly.")
Reactions
You can also tell who lost by who's complaining.
Donald Trump blamed the microphone for his performance in Monday night's debate, though no one seemed to notice any problems during the debate. Immediately after the debate, he thought Lester Holt did well, but then blamed Holt the next morning for bringing up the birther issue (true) and the housing lawsuit (not true... Clinton brought that up) while not bringing up Benghazi (true) or the email scandal (not true... Clinton answered that one directly). He also complained about Holt not bringing up the Clinton Foundation scandal, but if Holt brought that up, he'd have to equally dive into the Trump Foundation scandal, so that's a wash to me.
Trump has doubled down on his arguments about former Miss Universe Alicia Machado. Clinton said he called her Miss Piggy and made fun of her Latina heritage as an example of his tendency to belittle women based on their looks. Trump went on Fox News (twice!) and said things to the effect of "Well, she really did gain weight." Which is... not a defense, really. Further, when Clinton cited his use of looks-based terms for women "pigs, slobs and dogs," he brought up Rosie O'Donnell and said "I think everybody would agree that she deserves it and nobody feels sorry for her." Let's set aside whether Machado was an angel way back when (some dispute, but there's no question she's been productive since then). Let's set aside if Rosie O'Donnell said mean things to him. If your defense to "You judged someone on their looks" is "Yeah, well, she deserves it," that doesn't mean you're innocent. It's a middle school argument.
Facts
It's amazing how few people understand the role of journalists. Rudy Giuliani, a man who has lost almost all of the goodwill he built up, said: "If I were Donald Trump, I wouldn't participate in another debate unless I was promised that a journalist would act like a journalist and not an incorrect, ignorant fact checker." 1) Most fact checkers found plenty of false statements with what Donald Trump said. 2) What does Rudy Giuliani think a journalist should do, if not fact check? 3) He's calling facts incorrect and ignorant. Sigh...
Anyway, Donald Trump pretended to be his own fact checker on Monday night. Multiple times he interrupted to say if something was wrong, or that he did/did not say something. All told, I counted 11 times the two candidates clashed with interruptions over a verifiable fact. One of those times, Clinton was wrong (She did call TPP the "gold standard."). However, seven of those times, Trump would interject that something was wrong when it was not (I'm not going to list all seven). Three other clashes are rather in the eye of the beholder.
The links above will take you to fact-checking sites. You can also check out Politifact (15 graded statements by Clinton, with 12 rating mostly true/true and 1 mostly false/false v. 16 graded statements by Trump, with 5 mostly true/true, and 8 false/mostly false) or the Washington Post (10 false statements by Trump, 0 for Clinton. 2 true statements for Trump, 6 for Clinton).
Breakdown
Let's start with Clinton. As noted, she used facts more often, and she interrupted less. That's good, since she's already carrying the burden of many people's latent sexism (don't sound "shrill," don't sound "nagging," etc.). But there were some faults. She can be wooden and rehearsed, and some of the lines didn't come off all that well. For example, when she started to talk about economics, she said "what I call 'Trumped-up trickle-down.'" It's lame and she shouldn't have bothered. During the first quarter of the debate, when most observers say Trump did well, it was also because she was on the defensive about trade deals and both her husband and Obama's policies. Early on, when Trump would say something wrong, she'd send people to her website for fact checking rather than do it herself. That's equally lame and sends the signal of "Let my aides tell you why I'm right." There were several times when Trump was reeling and she could have landed a haymaker, but she went into a canned response instead. This shows she knew what she wanted to say, but maybe that she wasn't prepared for the in-the-moment battles. She was fine and had a few good moments, but it wasn't like she was the Babe Ruth of the debate.
However, she laid a ton of traps for Trump, and he walked into most of them. The first was when she needled him with two sentences about the $14 million-dollar loan that started Trump's business. He spent the first paragraph of his time responding to that, calling it "very small." Then she brought up his remarks about profiting off the economy's decline and that climate change is a Chinese hoax, causing him to interrupt and falsely claim he didn't say that. She brought up the "Trump loophole," a lame attack that nonetheless caused him to interrupt multiple times and be admonished by Lester Holt. She listed the reasons he might not want to release his tax returns, causing him to interrupt and inadvertently admit to not paying federal taxes. She needled him for not paying contractors what they've charged him, and he said they probably didn't do a good job, then — a tacit admission of guilt. She brought up the lawsuit from the 1970s, He spent a paragraph and a half arguing it. She brought up his Vladimir Putin praise, and he interrupted. She brought up Trump's support of the Iraq invasion, and he couldn't help but interject three "wrongs," despite its accuracy. She referenced Trump talking about Iranian sailors taunting Americans, and he interrupted her instead of waiting to rebut. She quoted his stance on nuclear weapons, to get him defending that. She brought up Alicia Machado, which drove him mad. Clinton has a tell when it comes to these things, like a bad poker player. If she uses "Donald," it's a trap. In all but one of the things in this paragraph, she used the term "Donald" when she said it. He cannot stand to be challenged directly.
As I said at the beginning, I think Trump did a good job in the first 25 minutes. He was the aggressor, and she was on the defensive. Trade deals are a weak subject for her, and you can tell she doesn't have a great response. He seemed to be on topic and tough until the 24:41 mark. He was hitting her hard about being a career politician, and she turned to prepared responses nearly every time.
This is where the wheels start to fall off. At that point, she makes her one non-rehearsed joke of the night, that she'd be blamed for everything (and gets laughter from the audience), then calls him crazy. He goes on an interruption spree before they both start to get back on track. The next question is about his tax returns, and he responds for a little while before Holt notes that the IRS says he's free to release the tax returns. Trump then says, "... and in a way, I should be complaining. But I'm not even complaining." He's praising himself for not complaining about being audited while he's complaining about being audited. Clinton then gets a few minutes to respond, and she lists possible reasons for not releasing his returns, which prompts the "That makes me smart" line. When the subject turns to her emails, and she falls on her sword about it, Trump only spends a few sentences piling on before going back to defend how rich he is, then explaining he's not doing that to brag, then talking about how the infrastructure is falling apart and "we've become a third-world country." (Seriously? I want our infrastructure improved, too, but a third-world country? Please.) Clinton then keeps the focus on him not paying taxes, bringing up his company stiffing its contractors and turning that around about his ideas on using that for the national debt. He is being challenged and can't stand it, interrupting with "wrong." When he gets a turn, he pumps up his business before talking about his hotels and that the national economy should be as easy as his hotels. The segment ends at the 40 minute mark and they switch to talking about race. It was a disastrous 15-minute segment for him.
The race segment helped get Trump back on message, but it also isn't solid ground for him. He was on the defensive about stop-and-frisk being unconstitutional (it is) and his birther statements. In those situations, he went on for several minutes without Clinton responding as he flailed for an answer. The strangest part of this segment was he attempted to deny accusations that he's been accused of racist things by talking about how he opened a hotel in the "tough community" of Palm Beach, Fla., and he didn't discriminate against black people or Muslims. His argument on why he wasn't a racist boiled down to praising himself for opening a non-discriminatory hotel.
The next segment was on security, and the first question was on cybersecurity, which did 68-year-old Clinton and 70-year-old Trump no favors. They didn't know what they were talking about. The topic turns to ISIS, and they both give nice answers sticking to their guns. This part of the debate was typical debate fodder until Holt correctly points out Trump supported the war in Iraq before it began. That sets off Trump again. He gets mad. It's a remarkable five-minute stretch in which Clinton says only seven words and lets Trump hang himself by his own noose. From 73:30 to 78:22, the only time Clinton speaks is to say that they've already covered the issue. During that time, he praises himself for prompting NATO to do something they'd already announced doing, gets into a fight over whether he supported the war in Iraq, says that people should call his supporter Sean Hannity to back him up, gets laughed at by the audience (!) for saying he has a better temperament than her, then accuses her of getting angry at the AFL-CIO (for which there is no verification other than him). When Clinton finally gets a chance to speak, she gives a little shoulder shimmy that signals "I know I've got this." As she answers, she needles him some more and he can't help but argue, and he loses an exchange ("That line's getting old." "But it's a good one."). The topic moves to nuclear weapons, and Trump can't keep on a train of thought. Clinton's response is standard fare.
The next question, on Clinton having the presidential look, is a lesson in backpedaling. He says yes, but also she doesn't have stamina. She gives a killer answer about traveling the globe and testifying before Congress. Sensing she's got him on stamina, he moves to experience — yes, she's got it, but it's bad. So when he gets cornered on looks, he moves to stamina. When he gets cornered on stamina, it's about experience. She calls him out for the first part, then brings up Alicia Machado, and he falls for the bait.
One final thing on the debate: At the very end, Trump praised himself for not being "inappropriate" and "not nice" to Clinton about (as he revealed in post-debate interviews) her husband's affairs. His son and campaign manager equally praised him for having the courage not to say something like that. You don't get credit for not bringing up something you're bringing up, as if you also aren't a philanderer. It's like saying "I'm brave for not calling you an [insert name here]."
Clinton's ceiling is low. She doesn't like to go for the jugular and prefers to let her opponent make a mistake. Maybe some day she'll have a debate opponent that won't make a mistake and it won't be enough. But that wasn't Monday. Monday, Trump more than bit himself in the rear, and the polls are are starting to show it.
Gary Johnson's Aleppo moment
Chris Matthews asked Gary Johnson to name a foreign leader he respected. Johnson's VP pick Bill Weld tossed out recently deceased former Israeli PM Shimon Peres. Matthews sticks with living foreign leaders and presses Johnson. Johnson demurs. Matthews brings up countries, perhaps prompting Johnson: Canada, Mexico, Africa, Southeast Asia? Johnson realizes he can't at the 25 second mark and admits to having "an Aleppo moment." Matthews presses again. Johnson brings up "the former President of Mexico." Matthews: "Which one?" Pause. Johnson's VP Bill Weld bails him out by naming Vicente Fox before answering Angela Merkel himself. A day later, Johnson's doubled down on it in a tweet. It's frankly embarrassing.
Look, I understand if you don't like Clinton or think Trump's frightening. But if you think Gary Johnson's a better alternative than either of those two when he a) can't name the major city in Syria in which we're fighting and b) can't name a single foreign leader he respects, you're not voting for someone you think will be a good president, you're voting third party out of spite.
Election Update
Presidential
Pre-debate, it was a toss-up. Post-debate, most national polls show a 3-5 point lead for Clinton. She's had a few good state polls in Florida and North Carolina since the debate. Polls post-debate show a solid 6-point lead for Clinton in Pennsylvania, Colorado, New Hampshire and Virginia. Pre-debate, I was going to move Colorado to toss-up, but post-debate keeps it blue. The one new poll of Arizona and Iowa shows a Clinton lead, but I don't trust the source, so I will wait for more before I make a move with them. Most pollsters took the weekend off because of the debate, so we don't have much new yet. No changes. Toss-up states: Florida and North Carolina. States to watch: Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Iowa, Nevada, Colorado. Electoral College: 272 Clinton, 222 Trump, 270 to win.
Senate
While there haven't been a lot of presidential polls, there have been several Senate polls. Several polls of Pennsylvania show either a 1-point lead for GOP Sen. Toomey or a 4-point lead for Democrat challenger McGinty. I think the edge is for McGinty, but it stays toss-up for now. North Carolina's had several polls, and it's bizarre: In one, the GOP candidate leads by 16; another has a 9-point Democrat lead; and others show a tight race. New Hampshire polls show either a tie or a small Democrat lead. New Hampshire moves to No Clue. No Clue: North Carolina, Missouri, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania. Outlook: +2 Democrat, not enough for a majority.
Summary Judgments
This blog has passed the 2,000 views mark. That isn't a huge number, but it means I have some persistent readers. Thank you for your dedication, your patience and your loyalty. It means a lot to me. • • • Here's an example of why I think Fox News is biased. On their main page, the morning after the debate, the second link on the page is about how online polls found Trump won the debate while "the media" declared Clinton won. Their own anchors touted that "polls say [Trump won]" after the debate. However, clicking on the link or hearing which polls they mentioned shows the truth: These are not scientific polls, they're on Republican web sites (Drudge Report, Breitbart, etc.) and they allow for multiple voting. CNN had a scientific poll of 500+ independent voters. They found Clinton won the debate by a 62-27 percent margin. Look, this was so bad that Fox News itself had to issue a warning to its hosts: Only reference scientific polls from reputable sources. • • • I honestly didn't notice Donald Trump's sniffles, but many others did. But Howard Dean went too far in questioning if Trump uses cocaine. That's the sort of over-the-top thing that needs to stop. • • • I accidentally went a week without running, but I ran 2.75 miles yesterday. That's the sort of thing that makes me feel really good about the race on Oct. 9. It's a 5K, rest, 3K. I'm excited. • • • Roland had his back turned to his daycare teacher this week. "Roland, are you putting something in your mouth?" "Yeah." "What is it?" "My boogers." At least he's honest.
No comments:
Post a Comment