Round 1 goes to Hillary Clinton. Anyone who watched the debate Monday night clearly saw Donald Trump, who had maintained a relatively solid footing for the first half, dissolve into a stammering train wreck by the end.
Even the most ardent Trump supporter must admit today that the debate was a setback. But was it a decisive blow? Polling this week might offer more insight, but as I write this I don’t believe Clinton, who frankly had more at stake Monday night than Trump, landed any sort of knockout.
First, Trump, at plenty of times during the debate, was bad. But he has been a bad candidate — at least “bad” in how conventional American political wisdom might define it — from day one. He has blustered, insulted, played fast and loose with facts and shown a less-than-stellar command of policy issues.
He has gaffed his way through 2016, beginning with the Republican primaries and immediately after the GOP convention, when he inexplicably squandered much of his ratings boost from Cleveland with some erratic moments.
Yes, Trump has indeed been a “bad” candidate — so bad that he vanquished several far-more polished Republican politicos for the nomination and, despite myriad seeming missteps, entered Monday in an essential dead heat with the by-the-numbers, politically veteran, ultimate D.C. insider Hillary Clinton.
As bad as Trump has been, he’s more than just still in the game because, to borrow from a bit of Trump bluster Monday night, Clinton is perceived by many as one of the “political hacks” he derided during the debate. The Democrat’s performance Monday night, while a win, did not quell that notion for many Americans.
Clinton hurt Trump. She was better prepared, had her script down and deftly exploited openings Trump himself provided, from the income tax issue to his questioning of her “stamina.” (This from a man who stumbled badly in the homestretch Monday night.)
And she did enjoy something of an advantage in that moderator Lester Holt asked only one direct question regarding a clear vulnerability for either candidate: Trump’s tax returns. There were no direct questions put to Clinton on her email scandal, Benghazi or power-brokering through the Clinton Foundation.
But many Americans still won’t trust Clinton, and she certainly doesn’t whip up emotional support with any passion or visceral connection to the people. She’s an adequate candidate who, under normal circumstances against an opponent like Trump, would seem adequate
enough to win. But it’s not certain whether “adequate” is enough in 2016.
I mentioned earlier that Clinton had more at stake in the debate than Trump for the simple fact she needs a boost of emotional electricity to her campaign, something to rally lukewarm Bernie Sanders supporters and independents to her banner. Trump had closed the polling gap with her
and states once considered in the bag for the Democrats, from Colorado to Ohio and Michigan, where Trump’s trade rhetoric plays well, were considered up for grabs.
With Monday’s debate, Clinton was able to plug her phone into wall charger to boost her battery life to a healthy level, but I don’t feel we saw a galvanizing lightning strike.
Meanwhile, Trump will have two more chances in debates to show voters he can appear “presidential.” Perhaps he will be chastened into learning from Monday’s mistakes, which were many.
Four years ago, President Obama faltered badly in a first debate with Mitt Romney, but he rallied in subsequent debates and carried the election for his second term. Trump is by no means Obama’s equal in standing on a stage and discussing issues and policy, but like the
president he does enjoy passionate, committed support from core followers, and he has a magnetism while offering something new and different than the Washington of the last several years.
Trump is a bad candidate — who isn’t going away.
—
(Jim Eckstrom is executive group editor of Bradford Publishing Co. and the Olean (N.Y.) Times Herald. His email is jeckstrom@oleantimesherald.com)
