The first presidential debate of 2016 is not likely to change many minds about which candidate to vote for. As to substance: the results were much as predicted in my Sunday column, namely Hillary Clinton for the status quo only more so, and Donald J. Trump for significant change. Clinton painted a rosy picture of the current economy and promised more government-funded benefits. Donald Trump disputed that picture and set the improvement of the economy as his top priority, with substantial lowering of taxes, reversing onerous regulations, and reversing the outsourcing of American jobs. Clinton wants to pay for all her new benefits by higher taxes on the super-rich. Trump says the reduction in tax rates will stimulate enough increase in economic activity to more than pay for the changes. Both proposals are sharply criticized by the other side. Trump is following the Ronald Reagan strategy (which worked) while Clinton is following the Obama strategy (which didn’t).
On the other issues covered – domestic terrorism, attacks on police, racism, ISIS, trade, and foreign policy – the positions taken were those advocated by the campaigns.
The real impact of the event was in the area of style and presence. A friend of mine used to talk about a person’s aura - described as a kind of illumination surrounding a person’s head. The color of the aura is said to be a visualization of the person’s energy. While I don’t see auras myself, I suspect that Hillary’s aura last night was a pale blue, indicating a calm detachment from the interplay between the participants. Donald’s aura was probably red - a fairly vivid red. Aided by Lester Holt, the moderator, Clinton kept Trump on the defensive for most of the evening .
Hillary Clinton was poised, professional and articulate. Donald Trump was aggressive, repetitious, and a little hard to follow, as he darted from one topic to another. On the other hand, he appeared totally engaged, sincere and anxious to get his points across. A little too anxious, in fact, as he frequently interrupted his opponent with side comments, sometimes speaking loudly over Holt or Hillary. This is not a habit appreciated by the audience, since then neither speaker can be understood. Clinton smiled at some of Trump’s comments, smirked at others, delivered her lines smoothly and coherently. Unlike her opponent, she made no errors in manner or poise, although some of her more outrageous accusations against her opponent did not seem appropriate for this venue. Overall, her performance might be characterized in baseball terms, as “no runs, a few hits, and no errors”.
The television set-up featured close-ups of the two, side by side, throughout the broadcast. At first I thought this format favored Hillary, whose picture was larger (closer) than Trump’s, On second thought, however, it may have favored him. Had the frame showed 6’3” Trump towering over 5’4” Hillary, it may have inspired sympathy for her. As it was, she appeared as an attractive older woman who knew what she wanted to say, and said it clearly, if without passion.
Trump fell into some of Holt’s traps as when Holt raised the issue of Hillary’s physical fitness for the job of President. Trump’s answer was too long, too detailed and too hard to believe with her standing right there appearing hale and hearty. The close-ups sometimes made Trump look like he was mentally stalking her with intent to pounce. Not good. Another Holt trap worked when Trump allowed himself to be distracted by Holt introducing the “birther” controversy. Trump wouldn’t let it go, and ended up being accused by Clinton of racism toward the first African American President. Not good.
In summary, Trump dominated the dialog (67 of the speaking time) even though Hillary held her own. He did have a couple of hits — the trade issue came across as his, and his emphasis on law and order, as well as the email issue. Trump’s score may have been “no runs, a few hits, and several errors”.
Presumably, both will improve in the next debates. They could both use a home run.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.