Monday night’s first presidential debate at Hofstra University was not an edifying affair. Nor, although it was often fiery, did it appear to incinerate either candidate. The impact will become clear in polls in coming days, but it is unlikely that the debate will sink one campaign or the other.
The challenge Donald Trump faced was to control his temper, demonstrate some policy acumen and, most importantly, convey plausibility as the next president. His performance was not by any means polished, but on balance he probably passed that test.
He was was more effective than Hillary Clinton early in the debate, but as the evening progressed, momentum swung the Democrat’s way as she became more assured and probably finished ahead on points.
Her task was to overcome the poor opinion Americans have formed of her during her nearly 30 years in the public eye. It cannot be said that she projected warmth or greatly connected with voters, but it would not be a surprise if she did enough to slow Trump’s steady rise in the polls in recent weeks.
Trump’s core argument was that the country and world are a mess and that President Obama and Hillary Clinton are to blame.
He cleverly acknowledged that she has much more experience in politics than he has but, he said, hers was “bad experience,” for she had acheived nothing. He thus turned his weakness as a nonpolitician into a strength by repeatedly portraying Clinton as an ineffective careerist — all talk and no action. “We have no leadership,” he summed up.
Clinton proposed raising taxes on higher income earners, free college and a higher minimum wage. Trump talked about making NATO members pay more for their own defense, and about bringing jobs back from China and Mexico.
He scored on Clinton by pointing out her egregious flip-flop on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which, as the Republican pointed out, she once called the “gold standard” of trade deals.
But Clinton was successful in her efforts to provoke Trump. She suggested that he rooted for the housing collapse, and that he is not as rich as he says he is. He took the bait and wasted precious time boasting about his businesses and talking about his taxes.
When she attacked him for his attitude toward women, he again fell into a rambling reply rather than deflecting her barb and moving on to ground where he is better able to fight.
Trump used some handy rhetorical devices. The best way to seem reasonable in a debate is to try to find common ground by making a concession to one’s opponent. He did this several times, on trade, race relations and (regretttably) on gun prohibitions for people on the “no fly” lists.
Moving on to the second debate, next month, Trump has some catching up to do and should take his faltering performance Monday as a lesson that he must prepare better and stay on point if he is to continue to erode her poll advantage and win over doubting voters.
