Hillary Clinton appears, by the polls, to have won (the CNN poll, just in, is scoring it 57% Hillary to 34% for Trump), and Donald Trump to have “not lost” the second US presidential debate, a bizarre affair advertised as a “town hall”-style event, in which few audience members got the opportunity to ask a question. And in which Trump threatened, if president, to appoint a special prosecutor and “use the laws” to put Clinton in jail.
Despite such bizarre tangents, and with the pressure on Trump following the release of the weekend’s Access Hollywood tape, which recorded him trading trash talk about women and sleazy ruminations on sexual assault (“grab her pussy”), Trump managed to turn in a combative if frequently incoherent performance, which nevertheless managed to frame Clinton as a political insider who had had decades to solve problems that she now promised to address.
[Rundle: Trump boasts of ‘grabbing pussy’, GOP ducks for cover]
Clinton, meanwhile, was low energy and failed to mount an effective attack against Trump, or much of an effective defence against some of his wilder charges. The debate was oddly dissatisfying, with Trump becoming increasingly freewheeling as the evening went on, while Clinton withdrew to an often defensive and slightly halting response. Perhaps this was part of the Clinton plan — to let Trump expand into the space and thus expose himself as a mentally disroganised rambler. If so, mission accomplished, but in doing so it made him look the more commanding of the pair, However it’s scored, Trump did well enough to dispel notions of being replaced on the ticket in some desperate last-minute switch by the Republican Party.
Which, some have been suggesting, was the whole point of Hillary’s performance — to give the Donald a pass, and keep him on the ticket.
The thing began innocuously enough with Clinton making some vague point about America having to be “good to be great”, while Trump confessed his embarrassment at the material on the Access Hollywood tapes. Then the gloves came off as Trump pivoted from his scandal troubles to his character — “no one respects women more than I” — to being able to fight Islamic State. Trump went into a recitative about all the problems of the world, which only he could solve, and that Hillary Clinton had had 30 years to solve. Clinton replied with her own list, from birtherism to mocking the disabled, and Trump went on the attack about missing emails, and that’s when he threw in the prison threat.
When it moved onto Obamacare, Clinton had a series of concise answers on policy shift, and Trump went into salesman mode: “It’s going to be so good …” One answer out of two, Trump lost whatever thread he had started on and rambled through a mix of opinion, outright falsehoods — Russia is new to nukes, I was against the Iraq war, too many to list — and wound up supporting Assad’s actions in Syria against Islamic State, and criticising his V-P candidate Mike Pence, who is in favour of US strikes against Assad: “I disagree with him.”
“Hillary has a lot of hate in her heart,” he later said, in relation to Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” speech, once again turning the tables on Clinton. Throughout, the debate Trump prowled the stage with a Caeser-is-angry expression on his face, while Clinton stayed on her stool and adopted expressions that were variously pained, amused, agape, can-you-believe-this-guy, a full Showcase portfolio of affects.
The final question was the usual dickwit one that rounds out these things: what quality do you admire in each other. Hillary: his children. Trump: she’s a fighter, she never gives up. Trump’s answer was the less cute — but it gives him leeway to use it in rallies. “Sure she never gives up. Never wins, but she never gives up,” etc etc. With that, they shook hands and parted, the cams following them recording, grimly hilariously, a symmetry: two powerful families walking from studio through corridors to garage, to climb into identical cars, surrounded by Secret Service protection.
A nothing end to a nothing evening, anything resembling a real issue of policy or character slipping away without real answer. It’s evenings like this — watched in a sports bar where everyone was as flat and dispirited as I — that even the most gonzo joy in the carnivale fades. Badly designed, badly conceived, badly run, it featured one candidate who is simply a terrible and deranged human being, and another whose apparent limited ability to marshal and prosecute an argument against a blowhard loser, to finish the damn guy off, suggests real limits of ability.
There was just an enormous vacuum there where a real and vigorous engagement should be. The fault is largely Trump’s because he has no real policies or complex ideas — but a functioning democracy should be able to call out a know-nothing, not allow him to indulge himself.
Limits of ability? Not so sure. As in other thread, I think she was uneasy and distracted throughout because Trump paraded Bill’s victims on national (world) TV, accused her of attacking them – and she couldn’t go there – couldn’t deny it, couldn’t mention them – and there they were in the front balcony row for all to see. And incidently, did not or could not deny that they were indeed Bill’s victims. Except for the one she attacked while defending a rapist. I think Hillary is a decent woman. I think she would have felt sick throughout. I did.
‘Which, some have been suggesting, was the whole point of Hillary’s performance — to give the Donald a pass, and keep him on the ticket.’
Man that sounds far fetched but, nonetheless, compelling. All Hillary had to do was ‘not lose’ and not allow Trump to get so worked up that he would become untenable as a candidate … not sure where that bar is … and that’s what happened.
Trump scored well enough to stay in the race and … lose.
He even improved his sniff rate.
A candidate who threatens to jail his opponent, a candidate who continually attacks viciously and personally without offering any coherent plans a candidate who sniffs like a coke user throughout…no contest Guy, no contest.
To be fair though, both candidates should be locked away in one of these badboys https://www.damninteresting.com/this-place-is-not-a-place-of-honor/
If the media, reason or good taste haven’t been able to finish off the blowhard loser I’m not sure it’s a failing in Hillary.
Clinton knows that when she wins the election, the Republicans will come after her with every scandal and rumour they can muster from the last 30 years, hoping to mire her presidency in mud. Therefore, critical to Clinton, is that they get a high Democratic voter turnout to turn a few House and Senate races, tipping the balance in at least one chamber. Also, by turning off normally sympathetic Rupublican voters from turning out for Trump (and therefore also voting in House and Senate races), the hope is to reduce the Republican vote. But it has to look like a contest, that its vital. If all that was at take was the Presidential vote, you’d see a different style of response from Clinton’s camp.
The US is a functional plutocracy – and Clinton & Trump are polar apogees.