Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The First Presidential Debate
Not since Godzilla fought King Kong have people so anticipated the confrontation between a radioactive lizard and a brutish ape. The first presidential debate was billed to me by various news sources as the culmination of the campaign a TV event that could rival and surpass the Super Bowl. Naturally I was curious to see it, and like some people who watch NASCAR I was secretly hoping to see something (or in this case someone) crash and burn. I think my first and overall impression of the debate was that while at times spicy it really seemed very conventional overall. So if you didn’t see it, but have kept up with the news of the campaign you aren’t going to see anything new by watching it. Save yourself the 1.5 hours. That said I will go into a more detailed set of impressions about this debate.
First off, I would just like to put my cards on the table here. I am one of those scurrilous people who for a lack of a better term is a NeverTrumper. I don’t like the guy or his policies. I also don’t like Hillary Clinton and I have no plan to vote for her. In fact right now I am likely to vote for no one for president (or maybe Evan McMullin if he is on the ballot in IL, but then again I repeat myself). A recent post by @claire asked us what if anything Trump or Hillary could say at this debate that would change my mind to vote for them. Well whatever that thing was none of them said it. As is my wont I will break this down by the two candidates and give you my impressions of each and how they did.
Hillary Clinton: Going into this debate what I heard from pundits was that she had to work on making herself likable and trustworthy to the general electorate, while still seeming strong and presidential, and not overly scolding and pedantic. I think given her deficit in appearing human and warm she probably exceeded expectations, but it’s hard for me to judge this because of my own biases against her. Certainly if people were expecting her to be overly shrill and tone deaf like she was in a certain recent video, she managed to avoid that. She looked healthy, and relaxed. Maybe a bit too relaxed. There were times when her level of cool almost seemed like she was sedated. I think it might have served her well to actually be able to display some outrage and anger, but if she felt any of that it was not obvious. Frankly when Trump went on a long and somewhat incomprehensible defense of his birther stance I think some actual outrage would have helped her. I am not a fan of Obama but I felt more outraged and defensive of him than she did. Anger is fine especially if it is righteous anger, something that Trump took full advantage of in this debate and which she avoided.
The one thing that was obvious was that Hillary was well prepared and maybe even a bit too prepared, because I noticed that she had a few well prepped lines that she threw in there. I knew that they were well prepped because they were delivered poorly and for the most part fell flat. Most egregious of these was her Trumped Up Reaganomics line (just terrible delivery, made me wince to hear it). Though she did have one that stood out to me for its good delivery, it even made me smile. They were in the middle of their argument about taxes and tax returns and Trump was deflecting by going on about how in debt we are to which she interjected that it is perhaps because Trump has been avoiding paying his taxes. Generally I would say she did a good job of presenting the Democratic line, and if this had been a written essay she would have done better.
Donald Trump: Going into this debate what I kept hearing was two things. From Republicans it was that Trump needs to just show that he has some mastery of the facts and is solid, and from Democrats I kept hearing this whole thing about which Donald would show up at the debate. Frankly, I don’t much understand what the Dems were talking about. If there is one thing we know about Donald Trump it is that there is only one Donald Trump. Trump was aggressive; attacking Hillary as impotent and unable to solve any of our problems despite having been in office for 30 years (which is an exaggeration). He focused a lot on trade and how much we have been screwed by it and other nations. He talked about law and order in our cities, and on foreign policy he had a long argument with Lester Holt about his track record on Iraq (he was against it, just ask Sean Hannity). Trumps best asset in this debate was his righteous anger. He probably did the best job he has done of channeling and expressing it as an attack on Clinton that I can remember him doing. From the stand point of tone I think he sounded good, angry but not unhinged. From the stand point of policy I think he was on much shakier ground and I expect the “fact checkers” to be out in force.
This debate had some great Trumpian nonsensical deflections the best of which might have been his claim that he settled a lawsuit over discriminatory renting practices in the late 70’s with a non admission of guilt clause in it. Now I’m not a lawyer, but just because you don’t admit guilt in a settlement doesn’t actually mean you aren’t guilty. But, that is Trump for you. I imagine Democrats will be pulling their hair out over that one. One thing that struck me as a missed opportunity for Trump was to push much harder against Clinton on her server. That said Trump certainly seemed in charge and as long as you don’t try to parse out his words too much he probably did a good job projecting mastery of the issues. At least in so far as he needed to argue that things have been going poorly and Hillary Clinton has done nothing to fix them.
So who won the debate and who lost it? Well, I don’t really know. Frankly, if Hillary had been hoping to draw Trump into some jaw dropping tirade she failed. Nothing he did or said at this debate was any where as bad as other things he has done. That said, you never know what will get to people. If Trump hoped to look presidential he succeed only in so far as those watching want a president who is angry at everyone and everything for screwing America over (which arguably is what a lot of people want).
Let me know what you guys think of the debate. Who did you think did well? Were you convinced to change your vote?
Published in General
I mindlessly clicked “like” to suggest, “Tragically, I agree with this assessment.” I don’t “like” it at all; I’m horrified by it. The human suffering this represents is beyond calculation.
I understood it the way @goldwaterwoman describes. Thinking back, it seems easy to look at it @claire‘s way. He’ll probably have to clarify in the coming days.
Trump wasn’t talking about us working to create a fair nationalized Iraqi oil industry to help build up funds to pay for the rebuilding of their country. It is very clear his conception of it is that we would have taken the oil as war booty. He is right that the oil is benefiting ISIS at the moment. But the only way for us to control it would be to physically stay there and defend the fields. So lets not pretend like Trump has some good analysis of this situation just because one of his facts happens to be right.
I would be absolutely delighted if she would toss off Bernie’s yoke and harken back to 1990s Bill Clinton on trade. The guy was a sleazeball, but he was a pretty decent free trader. It is a mark of how far left the democrats have moved (and the republicans for that matter) that they now consider Clintonian trade policies beyond the pale.
Not sure it’s worth getting into a debate over the issue, it’s a populist idea… like we shoulda nuked em and turned the Middle East into a sea of glass, wouldn’t have cost a single American life…. what??? You have a more nuanced policy that will cost American lives… are you gonna convince people who hold these ideas?
This is one of his many previous comments to suggest how he meant it to be interpreted: “In the old days, you know when you had a war, to the victor belong the spoils. You go in. You win the war and you take it. . . . You’re not stealing anything. . . . We’re taking back $1.5 trillion to reimburse ourselves.” I hope it isn’t true that 90 percent of Americans would think this sounds like a sensible or moral basis for our foreign policy.
See here is my thinking. I have just read some reports that on Fox & Friends Trump brought up this morning the Miss Universe lady that he called Miss Piggy. Why you would bring that up again I don’t know. But what Trump does next will be the real test of his campaign discipline. If he falls into a self destructive loop like with the Khan’s his polls will slide and he will blame his staff again and fire them all and go off on a rampage of full on Trump. And, that I think will be his doom. If he can hold it in ignore the small stuff and keep focused on Hillary he might keep his current poll position and maybe even improve. The polls govern Trumps life. If he dips I think he won’t recover, because he reacts poorly to bad news. If he stays even I think he can regroup for a better attack next time. Much of this is self fulfilling which is were the discipline comes in.
This was 100% predictable. They can tell him until the cows come home. He’s just not capable of that kind of self control. That’s the essence of his whole “temperment” issue. He shoots first and thinks later. And as I’ve said before, as a 70 y/o billionaire with the luxury of firing anybody who annoys him and surrounding himself with yes-men, that’s not gonna change.
Indeed. And it was large enough to have visible artwork on it — an “album cover.”
If it were put in terms of reimbursing the American people… I would bet 90 percent would be to low…
My big issue with the whole take the spoils idea is that it makes it sound like the oil is some sort of rug we can pick up and go with. Taking the Iraqi oil is literally like saying we will take Ukraine’s wheat field to pay us for helping them against the Russians. Sure Ukraine is one of the largest bread baskets in the world with enormous agricultural potential, but that is not portable wealth. Neither is oil. It betrays a totally superficial level of thinking on this issue. Which is the most generous thing to say in my opinion because the only other way to take this is that Donald Trump just believes in the legitimacy of conquest (the way Napoleon and Hitler believed in them). This is truly frightening if true because that means he will capitulate to Putin and China on all their aggressive conquests. Essentially then Donald Trump believes in the legality of theft.
Wow! The past is neat.
Apparently Chelsea Clinton served as a human shield preventing the debate from truly diving into the sewer.
Trump’s daughter Ivanka and her are reportedly close friends. Just one more wrinkle to an election already bizarre beyond description.
Americans always win in the end. I don’t know how we do it but we do. Maybe it’s because we are a bit (or a lot) crazy.
Totally bizarre. So that was his plan to win the debate? The Colin Powell strategy? Bill D****** Bimbos?
Just heard him saying on the radio that the moderator’s questions were really unfair because Hillary was not asked about Benghazi, email, server, etc etc.
I’d love to hear who was in the audience that prevented Trump from bringing all those things up himself . . . .
Americans probably don’t think that way, but war is war. Look back through history and tell all the great generals they had no right to claim territory and treasure for their countries just because they won. What, after all, is the purpose of war? We won the war in Iraq and lost the peace thinking everything would be just fine as we watched the Iraqis dip their fingers in ink and elect their first government. But, the real truth is we are all armchair generals and politicians here on Ricochet and are simply guessing. No doubt George W. is looking back and wishing he had a do over.
Putting content and knowledge and policies aside completely, I have to say that the cutsie little “cat full of cream” smile that she employed was absolutely maddening; she had clearly worked on that. I doubt that went over well with anyone but the most faithful sycophants.
Excuse me, but the Democrats are just as free to participate in those polls as Republicans, and you were only allowed to vote once. Why are they less legitimate than the CNN poll?
Do you know what pollsters do? I grant you they’re not infallible, but there is a science to polling a random sample of people. It is designed to provide insight into the larger population that is not polled. You don’t get the same results — and more important you don’t get meaningful results — if you just put a poll up on the internet and say “chime in if you want.” All you get that way is a poll that tells you what the few thousand people who chimed in think. You get no information whatsoever about how the population as a whole leans.
I agree. I think the situation today is this:
Many of those votes are going to have to come from the so-called “NeverTrump” brigade, as it’s unlikely that he can score enough more Democrat votes in the next six weeks.
Rush is doing his best to paint the “this year is different,” and “Trump is a genius” picture, while ignoring the fact that the votes that Trump needs to put him over the top need to come from people who largely don’t buy that “different” equals “genius” and “good” and that therefore Trump must be elected. They want to see someone who looks, and sounds, like the President, and not like the class clown. So far, Trump isn’t obliging them.
Sean Hannity and his ilk are doing their best to insult, bully, and threaten the NT folks into voting for their guy. So far, that’s not working.
The only person who can change the calculus is Trump, who has to exhibit some behavior and affect that can convince a number of people that they can imagine him as President, and move their support to him.
Either he can do that, or he can’t. After last night’s performance, I’m not hopeful.
I’m starting to edge towards the Divine Intervention camp myself.
I watched the entire thing (probably won’t watch any more of them), and I agree with what was said by many on NRO:
Using traditional metrics/scoring: Hillary clearly won the night. She was in command of the facts, seemed in control of her emotions, and was nonplussed by everything Trump tried to throw at her. I do agree that Trump was stronger in the first 15 to 20 minutes. If he had sustained that, I might have concluded he won. Later in the debate, Trump just became so rambling and inarticulate, I could hardly understand what he was trying to say or where he was going. I just wanted him to shut up (and I despise Hillary, so by default I was pulling for him in the debate-although I remain a committed nevertrumper).
These are our choices?
You think she was intentionally pulling a Jim Halpert ( I feel so smart since I binge watched 195 episodes of The Office just last week) routine? For those who haven’t seen the show… Halpert would intentionally look directly at the camera and give a little smirking smile when one of his office cohorts would do or say something especially idiotic. It was a running gag on the show…
https://goo.gl/images/vciBjT
Was the CNN poll just a link or did they actually poll a sample of voters?
That may have been one of the few hits he actually scored. Apparently HRC’s long service in government is no asset in the eyes of independents.
It was a real poll. Not a perfect one (as CNN acknowledged) but a real poll.
@catorand (and others) what do you think of NAFTA? Never done any research on it, but isn’t it a fairly general consensus among economists that it has a net positive in economic impact for the U.S.?
Herbert I think all trade agreements are necessarily compromised. There’s a lot of pork and special pleading from this industry and that in every one of them so they’re not perfect. But they’re a whole lot better than general high tariffs, or worse, closed borders. The global economy and our growth and prosperity depend heavily on the free movement of goods, labor and capital. So I’m very pro-NAFTA, even though I’m sure it could easily be vastly improved. Same for TPP.
Racist.