First, I must talk about the Moderator. He was the first to appear on stage and had a solid introduction, acknowledging the scope and importance of the debate, but managed to sharpen its focus to the two persons on stage. Though I have no doubt in my mind that he did his job better--or at least, with far more impartiality--than whoever Fox "News" would appoint, he did a rather poor job at moderating. Yes, that is the role of The Moderator---to moderate.
It may not have been as noticeable had it not been for a well-prepared introduction that clearly outlined the format, structure and time limits the debate would be holding. As a Moderator, his attempts to constrain things to that were rather feeble. On many occasions, both candidates went over their allotted time, and as a viewer I am uncertain if his efforts to curtail that had any effect whatsoever. The end result was the debate lasting 15-20 minutes longer than projected.
The reason this is a problem is that there is no penalty for it and a...contestant (? not sure what a debater is technically called)...is disadvantaged for not doing so and things tend to go off the rails. To her Credit, Hillary was fairly good at remaining in her allotted time despite repeated interjections by her opponent, Trump. It was a good tactic to try to keep her off her game or off point, but it got to the point where the clock had to be restarted for her thanks to her opponent speaking out of turn. The Moderator did little to mitigate that, quietly trying to interrupt or divert focus back to where it belonged, but it sounded half-hearted every time, as though someone from the audience was doing it for him. When Hillary went overtime, she didn't hasten to finish, and I can honestly say I don't see why anybody would feel incentive to do so. She did however finish on average before Trump when he went overtime.
Time, being the most valuable resource during these things, is something that is supposed to be allocated evenly, the choice in how it is spent a strategic matter. The Moderator should have done more to enforce that. Had I been Moderator, I would have announced that the limit had been reached, grant 10 seconds to wrap up and cut off the mic at that point. Mics would also be cut for one's opponent when it is one's turn to speak. This moderating--enforcing the structure and format of the debate. By doing nothing but feebly mumble, the Moderator allowed imbalance to occur.
This imbalance was used by Trump to great effect. His time management was superior in the debate, using up his opponent's time to inject attacks, rebuttals and sometimes even red herrings to divert Hillary off-message. On his own time, two or three times he simply didn't answer the question in any meaningful way and was granted free do-overs by restating the question and restarting the clock.
Now, to the Presidential Nominees.
In debate, there are three prevailing styles: Appeal to Reason, Conscience or Emotion. Trump continued his style of appeals to emotion. Was he effective in this? As someone of reason and conscience, I think not, but if he had been incapable of rousing to emotions of his target audience he never would have got this far. He managed to use the same language--both vocally and body--that has earned him a significant base of support while also characterizing his opponent as the enemy of his voters. By waffling through his defensive moments and attacking during his opponent's allotted time, he may actually have been rather successful in keeping people angry while also giving them a target for that anger.
In terms of substance...he was sorely lacking. Several questions went unanswered--instead wasted on filibuster with irrelevant digression--and fact-checkers will likely produce a number of new memes. For example, he said that Hillary has been fighting ISIS "her entire adult life", provoking incredulous snickering from an audience otherwise instructed to make as big a field of silence around themselves as possible. On that note, even the audience gradually became less affected by the Moderator having never been reminded to observe in silence.
Trump showcased his inexperience with his responses and despite trying to stay on the offensive, Hillary was clearly getting under his skin. Hillary played to her strengths, laying out specifics to questions while also being vague enough to speak to entire demographics, and largely responded with amusement to her opponent. She was appealing to reason, so at the very least, it was interesting observing the contrasting styles play out so diametrically opposed. By responding with amusement, she demonstrated her ability to remain calm and on-point despite distraction, countering her while also making Trump's emotional responses seem childish in comparison.
Throughout the debate she brought the audience to applause on multiple occasions and managed to get a few chuckles as well. Trump didn't really manage to woo the audience except for a strong final of six or seven minutes where he brought out applause a few times. Is that enough, though? Most debates are decided these days in the first fifteen minutes, not the last fifteen, and Hillary stood her ground rather effectively for a little over an hour.
Only at the end was her experience characterized as "bad experience", something that could have swayed opinions much earlier on. Though he did try to point out the failures of government during her time as Secretary of State, her defenses were well-composed and well-delivered. She managed to squeeze out as many "pros" from the "cons" as she could, admitted to her mistakes, while Trump wasn't quite so deft. By relating answers for the questions to her experiences and the experiences presented as beneficial, she was able to cover a broad range of topics and her opponent more narrowly focused. She even rightly pointed out that her opponent criticized her for preparing for the debate.
Appealing to reason has its limits however. She made several questionable statements during the debate, though they were hidden between very rational ones. While some Republicans would be quick to recognize them and Democrats to dismiss them, her efforts were probably for Independents who have broader--or at least, less consistent views--as the two major political parties. She may have made gains with them, while Trump hasn't gone for those same inroads.
Trump Hillary
Time Management: 8.5/10 7.5/10
Success of Appeal: 8/10 8.5/10
Substance in Replies: 3.5/10 9/10
Feasibility of Proposals 2/10 7.5/10
Moderator: Pthbbbbbbbbbbbb/10
Time Management: Trump managed to create more air time for himself and used it to undermine his opponent or repeat his message. His failing isn't going over time, but the meandering moments where he wasn't really talking about anything of consequence.
Hillary did a better job within her time constraints, speaking on broader subjects, not going off-message, yet effectively managed to attack and defend. She did however concede an advantage by not interjecting nearly as much as Trump and not balancing out the overtime.
Success of Appeal: Trump used his style that has been proven successful thus far, but didn't manage to work the crowd very well until the end. In fact, the audience seemed against him for most of it.
Hillary remained composed, had enough specifics to what appears to be logical (and thus is persuasive argument), had solid counter-arguments for some of what Trump said, while also keeping the audience on her side most for the majority of the debate. Appealing to reason comes with risk; there were statements made where she'd have to demonstrate Vulcan-Level logic to swat down detractors before they could Twitter up some rage, but did not do so.
Substance: Trump spoke a great deal of nothing at times (more than once he was give a do-over when a question wasn't even addressed in his allotted time) and when questions brought him in areas outside of his expertise, he reiterated that which he'd previously said. Repetition can be very persuasive, which is why he didn't get a 3/10. Doubling down on false statements, some of which were pointed out by the Moderator, lowered the ceiling of his potential. Also, he had a penchant for word salad and had several gaffes.
Hillary spoke on a broad spectrum of subjects and confidently invited fact-checking for herself and opponent. She also managed to relate to these subjects and listeners as a daughter of a small-businessman, as a mother, and as Secretary of State. A point was lost for false/questionable statements which may galvanize those who would be swayed by her opponent. For example, she pledged early on to ensure that women receive equal pay as men for work---and provided no context for this, nor any specifics as to how it would be achieved. In so doing, she may have alienated some men and women while trying to appeal to women in a rather transparent manner.
Feasibility: Trump came out swinging with many attacks, however, his defenses were rather weak. When asked for specifics, he deflected, refused to answer or talked about something else entirely. Of the things he did stand by or was already on the record for, Hillary went for the throat. On taxes and economics, she cited estimates that Trump would siphon trillions from the economy, pointed out that his cuts were beneficial for the wealthiest, and countered his claims about things being all-around-bad. Trump still hasn't given any indication what his ISIS strategy is, but his views on how Iran was handled is rather worrisome for those with military experience. He did, on occasion, strike Hillary where she had little defense and raised some valid criticisms regarding trade and job opportunity.
Hillary's specifics made note that economic recovery is going strong, there has been six years of job growth, decreases in crime, successes with diplomacy. The figures mentioned were accurate, negated much of how Trump was describing America, and her proposals were presented as pieces of an optimistic future--not in wishful-thinking prophecy like Trump's "there will be so many jobs", but with real numbers about where money would come from and how it would be spent. This wasn't just on the economy. She spoke of successes in foreign policy, aimed people at her book for lengthy explanations, outlined priorities in healing racial divide. For the most part, it seemed practical and feasible, with Trump simply saying "no", "wrong", "not", "that's a lie" in response. He should have explained precisely how they were those things, or should have given specifics as to how his policies were better.
Appealing to Reason, Hillary performed quite well in this area, and going after those who respond to Emotion, she highlighted the potentially disastrous consequences of Trump's policies going into effect. Appealing to Emotion, Trump didn't effectively maintain criticism of her record, but he did get strong applause when he tried. This may indicate a general feeling that Hillary's ambitions may not align with her promises. Going after those who respond to Reason, Trump just wasn't coherent enough and lacked the knowledge or experience to even compete for them.
Final Verdict: Hillary Clinton won the debate, managing to balance substance with style and rarely did her skills in debating appear tested, but the question remains if her margin of victory is enough to change the momentum. Trump has improved "bigly" since the Republican debates, and the contrast between now and then may give him the illusion of appearing Presidential--if that narrative can be made leading up to the debate moderated by a Fox News guy, the final stretch may be in Trump's favor. In two categories, he appeared like he actually belonged in a debate. In the final one, he made his opponent look like the only adult in the room. She must counter his areas of improvement effectively to win disaffected Republicans and swing Independents to her side. For Trump to win, Trump must either figure out how to sway the audience early or have better responses. He allowed his opponent to get stronger and stronger right up to the waning minutes of the debate.
Do you agree? Disagree? Was partisan bias evident in my assessment? What did I miss that I should analyze for the next one?
