jimnyc
09-27-2016, 05:45 AM
Debate scorecard: how Clinton and Trump compared on six key presidential qualities
Command of the issues
No one expected Trump — a political novice who has shown little tolerance for debate prep or policy briefings — to display a greater command of the issues than a former first lady, senator, and secretary of state. He didn’t surprise in that regard. While Clinton steered confidently from paid family leave to clean energy to criminal justice reform to mutual defense treaties, Trump floundered whenever the exchange shifted from his comfort zone — trade, jobs, Mexico, China — to less familiar terrain.
At times — such as when he ended up answering a question about his tax returns with a lament about America’s “Third World” airports — it seemed as if Trump, having exhausted his store of information on the subject at hand, was simply filling space with snippets of his stump speech and other unrelated musings.
The clearest example was cybersecurity. “As far as the cyber,” Trump began, “we should be better than anybody else, and perhaps we’re not.” He went on, at length, to speculate about who hacked the DNC earlier this year. (“It could be Russia, but it could also be China. It could also be lots of other people. It also could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, OK?”) He then bragged about his adolescent son, Baron. (“I have a son. He’s 10 years old. He has computers. He is so good with these computers, it’s unbelievable.”) Finally, Trump concluded with a stirring invocation of American ingenuity.
“The security aspect of cyber is very, very tough,” he said. “And maybe it’s hardly doable.”
In moments like these, Trump sounded less like a potential president than like a student bluffing his way through an oral exam.
It was a gap that Clinton was quick to point out. “I think Donald just criticized me for preparing for this debate,” she said at one point. “And yes, I did. And you know what else I prepared for? I prepared to be president. And I think that’s a good thing.”
Truthfulness
Voters tend to tell pollsters that Clinton is less trustworthy and honest than Trump. But on Monday night it was Trump who earned more Pinocchios and Pants on Fire ratings from the fact-checkers. Among the remarks of his that did not square with reality, according to Politifact: that he opposed the Iraq War from the beginning (false); that Clinton and her campaign started the birther lie (false); that financial disclosure forms are more revealing than tax returns (false); that China has “total control” over North Korea (mostly false); that he pushed NATO toward a sharper focus on terrorism (false); that ISIS started on Clinton’s watch (mostly false). The New York Times also found that Trump has, in fact, described climate change as a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese, despite claiming otherwise on stage.
Hillary Clinton listens to Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump during the presidential debate at Hofstra University. (Photo: Julio Cortez/AP)
Clinton wasn’t 100 percent truthful Monday. She did once call the Trans-Pacific Partnership “the gold standard,” for instance, even though she attempted to argue at Hofstra that this was merely her “hope” for the controversial trade agreement. And the way she characterized Trump’s tax payments — or non-payments — wasn’t entirely accurate.
But overall, Clinton’s relationship to the truth was much less elastic than her Republican rival’s.
Temperament
This was one of the big questions heading into Monday’s debate: Could Trump, who has built his political brand on bluster and braggadocio, prove that he has the sort of steely, steady temperament that voters tend of require of the people they entrust with the nuclear codes?
He eventually answered the question himself. Near the end of the event, moderator Lester Holt asked Trump why his “judgment” on the Iraq War was “any different than Mrs. Clinton’s judgment?” For several minutes, a defensive Trump carped and complained — about “mainstream media nonsense”; about Holt questioning his alleged war opposition; about “nobody call[ing] Sean Hannity!” Then — perhaps sensing that he was starting to sound unpresidential — the candidate pivoted to temperament.
“I also have a much better temperament than she has,” Trump declared. “I have a much better — she spent — let me tell you — she spent hundreds of millions of dollars on an advertising — you know, they get Madison Avenue into a room, they put names — oh, temperament, let’s go after — I think my strongest asset, maybe by far, is my temperament. I have a winning temperament. I know how to win. She does not have a …”
Holt tried to let Clinton respond. But Trump wasn’t done.
“Wait,” he snapped. “The AFL-CIO the other day, behind the blue screen, I don’t know who you were talking to, Secretary Clinton, but you were totally out of control. I said, there’s a person with a temperament that’s got a problem.”
“Secretary Clinton?” Holt finally cut in.
Clinton shook her head in disbelief. “Woo!” she said. “Okay.” Then she turned to Article 5 of NATO, seemingly content to let Trump’s temperament speak for itself.
Emotional connection
On a gut level, neither candidate was particularly dominant Monday night. But both had their moments.
Trump’s came early, when he tussled with Clinton on free trade, leaving her torn between her various political loyalties — to Obama, who supports TPP; to her husband, Bill, who signed NAFTA; and to liberal Democrats, who increasingly oppose both —while positioning himself as a more passionate (and less politically compromised) champion of struggling Rust Belt workers.
“All you have to do is look at Michigan and look at Ohio and look at all of these places where so many of their jobs and their companies are just leaving,” Trump said. “And, Hillary, I’d just ask you this. You’ve been doing this for 30 years. Why are you just thinking about these solutions right now?”
Clinton tried to respond with a line about the prosperity that America enjoyed under the previous President Clinton.
“Your husband signed NAFTA,” Trump retorted, “which was one of the worst things that ever happened to the manufacturing industry.”
“Well, that’s your opinion,” was all Clinton could muster. “That is your opinion.”
For the rest of the debate, Clinton struggled to make a similar emotional connection with her supporters. But near the end, she got her opportunity — and she seized it.
“Earlier this month, you said [Clinton] doesn’t have, quote, ‘a presidential look,’” Holt said to Trump. “What did you mean by that?”
Donald Trump and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton speak at the same time during the presidential debate at Hofstra University. (Rick T. Wilking/Pool via AP)
“She doesn’t have the look,” Trump replied. “She doesn’t have the stamina.”
With that, Clinton went off on her opponent — and attempted to rally women to her side. “You know, he tried to switch from looks to stamina,” she said. “But this is a man who has called women pigs, slobs and dogs, and someone who has said pregnancy is an inconvenience to employers, who has said women don’t deserve equal pay unless they do as good a job as men…
Trump tried to protest, but Clinton kept going.
“And one of the worst things he said was about a woman in a beauty contest,” she continued. “He loves beauty contests, supporting them and hanging around them. And he called this woman ‘Miss Piggy.’ Then he called her ‘Miss Housekeeping,’ because she was Latina. Donald, she has a name.
“Where did you find this?” Trump interjected. “Where did you find this?
“Her name is Alicia Machado,” Clinton said. “And she has become a U.S. citizen, and you can bet she’s going to vote this November.”
Let’s call it a draw.
Creating a moment
Nothing that happened Monday will go down in history as this year’s equivalent of “there you go again” — as hard as Hillary tried to imitate Reagan. Still, it’s possible that Trump may have produced a pattern of moments that will in turn trigger a new, damaging narrative or two, depending on how the coverage shakes out.
The first would be about his business dealings. A series of mini-moments — evading a question about his unreleased tax returns; boasting that he was “smart” to avoid paying taxes; owning up to charges that he has stiffed contractors — could undermine Trump’s claim to fame as a brilliant CEO.
Hillary Clinton speaks during her first presidential debate against Donald Trump at Hofstra University. (Photo: Lucas Jackson/Reuters)
The second storyline would be about race. Again and again, Trump stumbled on the issue. He praised stop and frisk, a policing tactic that was ruled unconstitutional in New York because it largely singled out black and Hispanic men. He seemed proud of the fact that he spent years spreading falsehoods about Obama’s birthplace, going so far as to claim that he “did a great job and a great service not only for the country, but even for the president.” (African Americans “really wanted me to come to that conclusion,” Trump added.) And when Clinton reminded viewers that the Justice Department once sued Trump for “racial discrimination because he would not rent apartments in one of his developments to African-Americans,” the Republican would only say that he “settled that lawsuit with no admission of guilt” and that other real-estate firms had been sued as well.
These things tend to add up. Whether they add up to a “moment” is for history to decide.
Stage presence
At the end of the debate, observers were only talking about one candidate’s “sniffling”; one candidate’s aggressive interruptions; one candidate’s split-screen grimacing. They were only comparing one candidate to Rick Lazio.
It wasn’t Clinton.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/whats-the-point-of-a-presidential-debate-081335415.html
Command of the issues
No one expected Trump — a political novice who has shown little tolerance for debate prep or policy briefings — to display a greater command of the issues than a former first lady, senator, and secretary of state. He didn’t surprise in that regard. While Clinton steered confidently from paid family leave to clean energy to criminal justice reform to mutual defense treaties, Trump floundered whenever the exchange shifted from his comfort zone — trade, jobs, Mexico, China — to less familiar terrain.
At times — such as when he ended up answering a question about his tax returns with a lament about America’s “Third World” airports — it seemed as if Trump, having exhausted his store of information on the subject at hand, was simply filling space with snippets of his stump speech and other unrelated musings.
The clearest example was cybersecurity. “As far as the cyber,” Trump began, “we should be better than anybody else, and perhaps we’re not.” He went on, at length, to speculate about who hacked the DNC earlier this year. (“It could be Russia, but it could also be China. It could also be lots of other people. It also could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, OK?”) He then bragged about his adolescent son, Baron. (“I have a son. He’s 10 years old. He has computers. He is so good with these computers, it’s unbelievable.”) Finally, Trump concluded with a stirring invocation of American ingenuity.
“The security aspect of cyber is very, very tough,” he said. “And maybe it’s hardly doable.”
In moments like these, Trump sounded less like a potential president than like a student bluffing his way through an oral exam.
It was a gap that Clinton was quick to point out. “I think Donald just criticized me for preparing for this debate,” she said at one point. “And yes, I did. And you know what else I prepared for? I prepared to be president. And I think that’s a good thing.”
Truthfulness
Voters tend to tell pollsters that Clinton is less trustworthy and honest than Trump. But on Monday night it was Trump who earned more Pinocchios and Pants on Fire ratings from the fact-checkers. Among the remarks of his that did not square with reality, according to Politifact: that he opposed the Iraq War from the beginning (false); that Clinton and her campaign started the birther lie (false); that financial disclosure forms are more revealing than tax returns (false); that China has “total control” over North Korea (mostly false); that he pushed NATO toward a sharper focus on terrorism (false); that ISIS started on Clinton’s watch (mostly false). The New York Times also found that Trump has, in fact, described climate change as a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese, despite claiming otherwise on stage.
Hillary Clinton listens to Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump during the presidential debate at Hofstra University. (Photo: Julio Cortez/AP)
Clinton wasn’t 100 percent truthful Monday. She did once call the Trans-Pacific Partnership “the gold standard,” for instance, even though she attempted to argue at Hofstra that this was merely her “hope” for the controversial trade agreement. And the way she characterized Trump’s tax payments — or non-payments — wasn’t entirely accurate.
But overall, Clinton’s relationship to the truth was much less elastic than her Republican rival’s.
Temperament
This was one of the big questions heading into Monday’s debate: Could Trump, who has built his political brand on bluster and braggadocio, prove that he has the sort of steely, steady temperament that voters tend of require of the people they entrust with the nuclear codes?
He eventually answered the question himself. Near the end of the event, moderator Lester Holt asked Trump why his “judgment” on the Iraq War was “any different than Mrs. Clinton’s judgment?” For several minutes, a defensive Trump carped and complained — about “mainstream media nonsense”; about Holt questioning his alleged war opposition; about “nobody call[ing] Sean Hannity!” Then — perhaps sensing that he was starting to sound unpresidential — the candidate pivoted to temperament.
“I also have a much better temperament than she has,” Trump declared. “I have a much better — she spent — let me tell you — she spent hundreds of millions of dollars on an advertising — you know, they get Madison Avenue into a room, they put names — oh, temperament, let’s go after — I think my strongest asset, maybe by far, is my temperament. I have a winning temperament. I know how to win. She does not have a …”
Holt tried to let Clinton respond. But Trump wasn’t done.
“Wait,” he snapped. “The AFL-CIO the other day, behind the blue screen, I don’t know who you were talking to, Secretary Clinton, but you were totally out of control. I said, there’s a person with a temperament that’s got a problem.”
“Secretary Clinton?” Holt finally cut in.
Clinton shook her head in disbelief. “Woo!” she said. “Okay.” Then she turned to Article 5 of NATO, seemingly content to let Trump’s temperament speak for itself.
Emotional connection
On a gut level, neither candidate was particularly dominant Monday night. But both had their moments.
Trump’s came early, when he tussled with Clinton on free trade, leaving her torn between her various political loyalties — to Obama, who supports TPP; to her husband, Bill, who signed NAFTA; and to liberal Democrats, who increasingly oppose both —while positioning himself as a more passionate (and less politically compromised) champion of struggling Rust Belt workers.
“All you have to do is look at Michigan and look at Ohio and look at all of these places where so many of their jobs and their companies are just leaving,” Trump said. “And, Hillary, I’d just ask you this. You’ve been doing this for 30 years. Why are you just thinking about these solutions right now?”
Clinton tried to respond with a line about the prosperity that America enjoyed under the previous President Clinton.
“Your husband signed NAFTA,” Trump retorted, “which was one of the worst things that ever happened to the manufacturing industry.”
“Well, that’s your opinion,” was all Clinton could muster. “That is your opinion.”
For the rest of the debate, Clinton struggled to make a similar emotional connection with her supporters. But near the end, she got her opportunity — and she seized it.
“Earlier this month, you said [Clinton] doesn’t have, quote, ‘a presidential look,’” Holt said to Trump. “What did you mean by that?”
Donald Trump and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton speak at the same time during the presidential debate at Hofstra University. (Rick T. Wilking/Pool via AP)
“She doesn’t have the look,” Trump replied. “She doesn’t have the stamina.”
With that, Clinton went off on her opponent — and attempted to rally women to her side. “You know, he tried to switch from looks to stamina,” she said. “But this is a man who has called women pigs, slobs and dogs, and someone who has said pregnancy is an inconvenience to employers, who has said women don’t deserve equal pay unless they do as good a job as men…
Trump tried to protest, but Clinton kept going.
“And one of the worst things he said was about a woman in a beauty contest,” she continued. “He loves beauty contests, supporting them and hanging around them. And he called this woman ‘Miss Piggy.’ Then he called her ‘Miss Housekeeping,’ because she was Latina. Donald, she has a name.
“Where did you find this?” Trump interjected. “Where did you find this?
“Her name is Alicia Machado,” Clinton said. “And she has become a U.S. citizen, and you can bet she’s going to vote this November.”
Let’s call it a draw.
Creating a moment
Nothing that happened Monday will go down in history as this year’s equivalent of “there you go again” — as hard as Hillary tried to imitate Reagan. Still, it’s possible that Trump may have produced a pattern of moments that will in turn trigger a new, damaging narrative or two, depending on how the coverage shakes out.
The first would be about his business dealings. A series of mini-moments — evading a question about his unreleased tax returns; boasting that he was “smart” to avoid paying taxes; owning up to charges that he has stiffed contractors — could undermine Trump’s claim to fame as a brilliant CEO.
Hillary Clinton speaks during her first presidential debate against Donald Trump at Hofstra University. (Photo: Lucas Jackson/Reuters)
The second storyline would be about race. Again and again, Trump stumbled on the issue. He praised stop and frisk, a policing tactic that was ruled unconstitutional in New York because it largely singled out black and Hispanic men. He seemed proud of the fact that he spent years spreading falsehoods about Obama’s birthplace, going so far as to claim that he “did a great job and a great service not only for the country, but even for the president.” (African Americans “really wanted me to come to that conclusion,” Trump added.) And when Clinton reminded viewers that the Justice Department once sued Trump for “racial discrimination because he would not rent apartments in one of his developments to African-Americans,” the Republican would only say that he “settled that lawsuit with no admission of guilt” and that other real-estate firms had been sued as well.
These things tend to add up. Whether they add up to a “moment” is for history to decide.
Stage presence
At the end of the debate, observers were only talking about one candidate’s “sniffling”; one candidate’s aggressive interruptions; one candidate’s split-screen grimacing. They were only comparing one candidate to Rick Lazio.
It wasn’t Clinton.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/whats-the-point-of-a-presidential-debate-081335415.html