Debate 2: ‘Trump has lost the elections’
-
Photo: Michael Vadon, Creative Commons.
Parliamentary historian Peter van der Heiden missed out on some sleep again, to follow the debate between Clinton and Trump for Vox. 'Trump creeped around like a tormented tiger.'
‘Watching the second debate between Trump and Clinton gave me the same feeling as going to see a film that I have been looking forward to for months, and get disappointed. A great trailer, good pre-publicity – but still a feeling of ‘meh’. Even though the ingredients for a spectacular night were there, especially after the reveal of the Access Hollywood tape.
That tape formed the beginning of the debate, obviously. For who has been living under a rock the last week: the tape shows Trump, bragging about how his success with women, especially women who are not happy with his attention, in the most graphic way possible: ‘I grab ‘em by the pussy’. Trump dismissed the question whether this was sexual assault with a simple ’that was just locker room talk’. No excuses, but an attack, because Bill Clinton had been much worse according to him, and to top it all of: ISIS was even worse, and that movement emerged because of Hillary Clinton’s negligence, so why were we even talking about the tapes?
Substantively – for as far as there was any real substance – this debate was a tie
Of course Clinton also ended up under attack, about the recently leaked e-mails. She struggled with this topic, but it also provoked Trump to come with an over-the-top reaction, saying that, if he would be ‘in charge of the laws of the United States’, he would hire a special prosecutor to get Clinton in prison – unique in the history of the US elections: a presidential candidate threatening the other candidate with prosecution. At the same time, this comment showed that Trump is not really aware of the constitutional rights that a president has – the Congres is in charge of this. Something else worth mentioning: Trump did not agree with his running mate about American intervention in Syria, remarkable in this stage of the campaign.
Unique
Substantively – for as far as there was any real substance – this debate was a tie. But last night was not about the substance, but about the candidates’ attitude. This started with the beginning of the debate, when the candidates did not shake hands, another unique thing about this year’s campaign. And from that point on – at the risk of sounding biased again – things did not go well for Trump. Where Clinton kept her cool, stayed calm and seated when it wasn’t her turn, Trump creeped around like a tormented tiger, often getting into Clinton’s personal space. Another thing that was not strong about his performance, was his constant complaining about getting less time than Clinton (even though in the end, he had one minute more than she had) and his insinuations that debate leaders were rooting for Clinton (’three against one, good to know’).
Trump lost the elections when the tape leaked
But the main question is, of course, whether last night’s debate has made any difference. Again, I think the effect will be very small. At most, Trump has managed to stop the bleeding (a lot of important Republicans have left his camp in the past days), but I would be surprised if he has increased his chances to get elected. Those chances already decreased during the first debate. In my modest opinion, Clinton can sit back and relax. Trump lost the elections when the tape leaked – and he will not debate his way out of that.’
Evert van der Zweerde schreef op 11 oktober 2016 om 00:58
Fine analysis! A tormented tiger indeed, and a desperate one – he knows that even though they are in the same cage, he’ll never catch his prey. To me, it’s almost as if he’s already given up – at times, he seemed distracted, trying to intimidate but failing to do so. At the same time, being one of those people who never had any illusions about Trump, but might be tempted to have them about Clinton, I was disappointed by her performance, too. She said, quoting Michelle Obama: “If they go low, you should rise.” But she didn’t – she went low, too. We might well be heading for the lowest turn out ever: if all are convinced that Clinton will win anyway, there’s no reason left to vote Trump, but then there is no reason to vote Clinton either. Both are deeply despised by large sections of the US American people, and, I have to say, rightly so. Presidential democracy is on the way out, not empirically, but in terms of legitimacy.
Oplettende student schreef op 11 oktober 2016 om 09:50
Je bent een klein ding vergeten te noemen, namelijk het feit dat de hele amerikaanse verkiezingen een grote facade zijn, niet alleen is er bewijs dat Bernie Sanders eigenlijk de democratic nomination gewonnen heeft (op stemmen), Debbie Wasserman Schultz is afgetreden als voorzitter als gevolg van het actief tegenwerken van Bernies campagne binnen de democrats. Bovendien is hillary mogelijk nog erger dan Trump en als je de amerikaanse politiek een beetje gevolgd hebt weet je dat die vrouw geen greintje gevoel in haar hele lichaam heeft en haar ” succesvolle” foreign experience (bestaande uit het platbombarderen van alles dat bruin is) gewoon voort gaat zetten. Obama is btw net zo’n held die als eerste zwarte president er gigantisch in faalt ook maar een poging te wagen zwarte mensen te beschermen tegen systematisch geweld in de VS, en sinds hij president is geworden zijn het aantal Drone strikes (waarvan gebleken is door gelekte documenten van het pentagon zelf dat deze 90% het verkeerde doelwit raken)enkel vergroot.
TOP LAND!
Frank Bohn schreef op 13 oktober 2016 om 15:45
I watched the debate life because I am currently in the US for a conference. I liked the tiger metaphor Peter used; that describes the debate pretty well. What struck me was that Trump thinks he can away with behaviour that is typical for authoritarian rulers. He threatened to have Hillary jailed – unconstitutionally. He uses scape goats to stir up hate trying to align people behind his candidacy. He continues talking about women in an abusive way (just remember how Gaddafi used the members of his female presidential guard as sex chattel).
abusive and deject