A Basketful of Lamentables: the Second US Presidential Debate (Oct. 9th, 2016)

It is probably a profound understatement to say that the US 2016 presidential election does not lack for drama. Yet under all of the rhetoric, the accusations, the personal attacks, the invective, the bluster, and yes, the many, many lies and half-truths, there is an incontestable reality: Americans are not seeking to elect a plaster saint. They are seeking a leader.

Did that quest become clearer after the second presidential debate? It depends what one means by ‘clearer.’

In last week’s vice presidential clash Mike Pence, Donald Trump’s running mate, showed enough temperament to have rocketed himself to a potential front-rank spot in the 2020 Republican field, should the nominee for 2016’s contest fail. In those 90 minutes he proved urbane, polished, and temperate enough in the face of relentless attack to re-frame the public consciousness from Trump’s first, uneven encounter with Hillary Clinton.

After that, the deluge.

Whatever advantage Spence gained for the ticket melted away by week’s end as audiotape of Trump’s lewd comments on women exploded onto the national media scene like a grenade. All of a sudden, Republican grandees and candidates started withdrawing their support, even calling upon him to ‘do the right thing’ by bowing out in favour of Pence; long-time naysayers like Mitt Romney and John Kasich started to make “I told you so” noises; The GOP congressional leadership seemed paralyzed, unable to decide whether or not to shift their funds to salvage local races and concentrate on preserving their Senate and House majorities. Even Pence called Trump to express his outrage and intent to refrain from acting as a surrogate for the next 48 hours.

Trump, in turn, did what he does best: go on the offensive. He issued a quasi-apology on Facebook, pivoted to attack Bill Clinton, then unleashed a torrent of invective on his own party, calling those who were running from him, “hypocrites.”

All of this sound and fury obscured a real fact: the first 30 minutes of relentless barbs and attacks aside, the second presidential debate went quite well for Trump. In fact, he gained a tactical advantage even before the debate started. 90 minutes prior, he’d staged a ‘debate prep’ media session, essentially parading a bevy of Bill Clinton’s accusers in front of the media, less to deflect from his own indiscrete remarks then to do to Hillary what she’d done to him the last time around: knock her off her game. It worked. The icy dislike – nay, hatred – between both candidates was palpable as they strode out onto the debate stage. And when Trump inevitably raised the issue the reaction shot of Clinton showed a woman practically seething with rage.

Perhaps of this galvanizing animus the debate practically crackled with emotional tension, with both combatants fighting essentially to a draw as they took audience questions, partially answered them (or not at all) and then swiftly pivoted to cast aspersions on the character and policies of their opponent. As if rubbishing each other was not enough Trump compared Clinton to the devil, argued that she should be jailed, loomed behind her in a vaguely threatening manner (like Al Gore trying to intimidate George W Bush in 2000).

Clinton was predictably well-prepped, seeking to take advantage of the town hall format so familiar to her. Decades of experience in countless sessions as first lady, senator and secretary of state taught her to ape Bill’s studied “I feel your pain” approach of making / holding eye contact with questioners, using open emphatic, inclusive gestures and softening one’s voice as she sought to project empathy. She also used every opportunity to emphatically draw contrasts between her positions and Trump’s, attacking his (more) oafish statements, stances and where evident, his policies, all the while seeking to drive home his unsuitability for the most powerful office in the world. Key words like “unfit” and “unprepared” were used like seasoning on a bland tasting steak. But she could not overcome the impression that she is, in many ways a weak candidate, struggling to articulate clearly why she was running, overused cliches and gave annoyingly lawyerly answers that sounded like she was distinctly uncomfortable, especially on her judgement in handling emails as Secretary of State (an old issue she should have more than addressed adequately by now). As the campaign wears on she is steadily morphing into the twenty-first century equivalent of another habitual politician whose awkwardness in the limelight could at times be painful: Richard Nixon. And with her bevy of issues on credibility the implication is not positive.

For his part, despite lack of familiarity with this town hall format, Trump showed a higher degree of polish than before. He exerted some control over his occasionally errant gestures, used assertive body language and moved around the stage with relative ease for a man of his bulk and size. In the world of intangibles, he occasionally projected ease, confidence and, most importantly, sheer stamina. As the oldest presidential nominee in American history, Trump was impressive in remaining on his feet for what must have been a gruelling 90 minutes. Clinton, by contrast, seized every opportunity in between questions (or insults) to sit down. The visuals are bad, conjuring up images of her 9/11 post-remembrance wobbliness and raising subtle questions about her stamina.

Yet, if this comes across as faint praise, it is. Trump limped into the debate so damaged that he would have had to strip naked and run around the stage to have done worse than expected. He was still undisciplined and downright puerile at times, complaining yet again that the moderators were biased against him, which is never wise (viewers don’t care about those folks). He missed chances to attack Clinton on the revelations she's advocated for open borders and trade deals in those private speeches, which exposes the conflict between her public and private utterances. Another, Bill Clinton’s purported infidelities and predatory sexual behaviour, is old news and probably radioactive for Republicans because of Trump’s record of three marriages and rumoured affairs.

The truth of the matter is that neither Clinton nor Trump are “A” player candidates. Nor are they paragons of virtue. In this contest of vastly diminished expectations, the US needs a president who can keep the homeland safe from internal and external terrorist threats, protect national interests abroad, keep taxes manageable, safeguard and enhance job security for workers while navigating the uncertain waters of globalization. These basics are hard enough to do. Everything else in between is gravy.

The evening’s flash polls showed Hillary Clinton “winning” the debate, which was no real surprise, though her performance was essentially a repeat of the previous encounter. Trump, with more to lose, stopped his slide by hitting hard and appearing more focused then before. Yet, exceeding admittedly low expectations is not enough: he needed to appear poised, in control, and most importantly flesh out his vision and plans to an increasingly sceptical undecided audience. He didn’t do that, and buy not making a strong enough pitch, the master salesman may not get another chance to try and close the deal.