The first of three presidential debates took place last night. Sticking to my norm, I didn’t watch them. Their policy ideas are known and available in far greater detail from other sources, and I’ve already decided I’m not voting for either of them. So, my personal opinion on their performance doesn’t matter. My critiques are on policy, not performance art.
What does matter is the voters’ response to the debates. Contrary to wonkish belief, there are undecideds out there, there are people who may choose to stay home rather than vote for either of them, and there are people who might be either pushed towards third party votes or pulled back from third party votes. Thus, there is much to be gained by reading the Tuesday morning postmortems, spins, deconstructions and tea leaves.
Thus far:
– Pundits agree that Clinton beat Trump, but not decisively.
– Trump did well early, but failed to take advantage of many openings and opportunities.
– Clinton controlled the tone and direction of the debate, and managed to push some of Trump’s buttons.
– Clinton presented better.
– The money people give a moderate victory to Clinton.
– The markets give a moderate victory to Clinton.
– Clinton partisans are cheering like they just won the Super Bowl 55-10.
– Trump partisans are claiming that he gave as good as he got, and that he did well enough to keep his momentum.
– Electionbettingodds showed an immediate 6 percent gain by Clinton and a 4 percent loss by Trump.
– Drudge Report’s poll ran for Trump 90-10 initially and 80-20 currently. It’s worth noting that Trump’s supporters have generally shown a stronger presence at Drudge.
– The moderator favored Clinton, substantially.
– No knockout blows, nothing (as yet) that’s going to be an endless-loop campaign ad sound bite.
This’ll be dissected until the second debate on October 4th, at which time what happened in the first debate will lose relevance. Just as the results of the conventions faded into the woodwork with the approach of this debate, this one will fade in favor of the later debates. Trump’s fans can take solace in their candidate’s failure to commit any fatal errors, and in his early success. Clinton’s fans can take pleasure in the expected outcome i.e. her preparation and knowledge base won the day for her.
The pundits agree that Clinton came away the winner of the debate. The pundits, however, have done a poor job at correlating their opinions of the candidates with the mood of the electorate. That won’t be known until a few polls take place. As a benchmark, the RealClearPolitics average at the moment shows Clinton with a 1.6% lead (which is certainly within the margin of error, suggesting that the race is too close to call). Where the polls stand next Monday is the ultimate measure of this debate’s outcome. Given that both candidates did OK and neither had a meltdown moment, it’s safe to say that this debate won’t be the hinge-point of this election.
Loading ...
“– Drudge Report’s poll ran for Trump 90-10 initially and 80-20 currently.”
__________
— Time Magazine currently shows Trump 55-45. (They must be having fits!)
During the debate, and through even today, the main-stream media have been circulating the charge that Trump was high on cocaine. This began almost before the debate ended, and the articles were *so* widespread that it was clear some kind of collusion had taken place. I’ve followed this up and the rumor started with Howard Dean via Twitter, which was then distributed widely by the DNC. Note those organizations that published such articles and you can directly follow those who get their orders from the DNC. I doubt this will surprise anybody. What surprised me was the number of lefties who pooh-poohed any idea of coordination *despite almost identical articles*, and despite the Twitter trail. The supposition is that everyone just concluded the same thing themselves.
The Koolaid is strong, but this level of denial in the face of facts is striking. Critical thought is deader than a doornail.