So, How Did The First Debate Go?

Unless you were on some other planet, you know there was a presidential debate Monday, September 26.  Some predicted one hundred million people would watch or listen.  We won’t know for a little while whether that happened or not, but we know the debate pushed everything else off the top of the news.

 So, what happened?  Who won and why?  Everyone in the political world asks such questions in the aftermath of a presidential debate, so we’ll weigh in.

We prefer to evaluate this debate in terms of what each candidate needed to accomplish in the larger context of the race, now hurtling toward its November 8 finish. A clear narrative emerged in the pre-debate build-up about what both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump needed to do in that 90 minutes before that expected huge audience.  A consensus developed that Trump had to show himself “presidential,” making him attractive to white college educated suburbanites, especially women, and that Clinton had a more complex task – first, to build enthusiasm among those inclined by party, demography, or history to vote for her and, second to convince a small, but influential, swath of Republican-leaning voters skeptical of Trump that supporting her was acceptable.

Clinton. HRC’s effort to reach her base centered on economic proposals related to jobs and infrastructure and her rejection of Trump’s tax policies. Clinton reminded Bernie Sanders supporting millennials that she wants to take on income inequality and get the wealthy to pay more in taxes, a goal Trump has never embraced. His tax proposals, in fact, point in the other direction.  She attacked Trump’s proposed tax cut as “trickle down” economics, and accused him of trying to make things better for rich people, like Donald Trump. On social issues, Clinton also was willing to suggest that police shootings of young black men resulted, in some instances, from structural or institutionalized racism, a position clearly designed to appeal to young and minority voters who have been lukewarm about her. Trump did little to counteract these statements except to launch a harsh, broad brush characterization of life in black America that, for many at least, bears little connection to reality. Clinton generally seemed to have free reign in her efforts to appeal to elements of the Obama coalition that have been skeptical about her.

Clinton tried to carry out her second objective, convincing college educated white voters that their reservations about Trump are legitimate and justify a vote for the Democratic nominee, by highlighting Trump’s business practices and failings and by challenging him on his refusal to release his tax returns. Clinton pointed to an architect in the audience Trump allegedly stiffed on a golf clubhouse project to highlight the dark side of Trump’s business success.  She also made much of his business bankruptcies. The tax return point, especially that the IRS itself says an audit does not prevent Trump from releasing his returns, has been made over and over, but Clinton’s willingness to confront him with it before 100 million people may have had a more devastating effect than her television ads ever could.                        

               

Trump.  The question of Trump’s ability to appear “presidential” has been foremost on the minds of voters and pundits since his emergence last spring as the likely Republican nominee. His long line of controversial and sometimes insulting statements and behaviors needs no restatement here.  Early on, observers spot lighted the general election debates as a key place to look for whether Trump could reign in his natural proclivities and project a presidential image.

The question has always had verbal and nonverbal dimensions.  The verbal part related to whether Trump could handle policy nuance and detail, showing a grasp of issues a president must face and address with the nation. The nonverbal part concerned Trump’s demeanor.  Could he demonstrate the requisite calm that gives the country and the world confidence he would not do something irrational?  Relatedly, how would he behave on stage juxtaposed against the first female nominee of a major political party, especially given some of his more uncharitable statements about women in other contexts?

Trump’s debate performance does not seem to have achieved the objective of making him look “presidential.”  On the verbal front, his failure to present cogent answers on foreign policy and national security questions undermined any suggestion that he grasps the details of policy in those areas. Only the most partisan Trump supporter could argue that the last forty minutes or so of the debate represented anything except a meltdown for the business magnate. One veteran Republican strategist labeled his performance in that part of the debate “incoherent.”                              

Evaluating Trump nonverbally, of course, represents a highly subjective exercise.  Beauty rests in the eye of the beholder.  Some of Trump’s supporters, no doubt, found attractive the constant interruptions of his opponent and his extensive facial and hand gestures. Other observers viewed those aspects of his presentation as offensive and inappropriate.  The fact that the distinction can even get drawn, however, suggests Trump’s failure.  Trump needed to make sure no doubt existed as to whether he had behaved “presidentially.”  The fact that no consensus emerged means that the issue remains alive. That is not good news for Trump.

A fair, honest appraisal of Trump’s performance requires an acknowledgement that he connected on one issue.  Early in the debate, he put Clinton on the defensive on trade issues. Leaving aside the policy question of whether trade deals cost American jobs or otherwise damage the economy, trade deals like NAFTA are politically unpopular with large segments of the electorate and Trump took advantage of that.  The fact that he apparently found no other verbal or nonverbal nuggets suggests he did not achieve his overall objective.

One debate, like one football game, does not a season make.  Trump has two more chances and his running mate has one to change this picture. Clinton didn’t win the White House Monday, but she appears to have done little that would lose it.

Are we right?  Wrong? Somewhere in between?  Weigh in below.