The second Clinton/Trump took place early this morning. This time it was “Town Hall” style – with questions from audience members. It started without the traditional handshake (which has one precedent in the shape of one of the Nixon/Kennedy debates) but finished with a brief one.
Some of the subjects covered were: the leaked video-tape of Trump, Bill Clinton’s misdemeanours, taxes, the Clinton emails, the character needed to be President, ISIS, Syria, Supreme Court judges, energy and healthcare.
Donald Trump stalked the stage, sniffing frequently, petulantly arguing with the moderators, continuously interrupting. His answers were rambling and contained much bragging. Hillary Clinton perched neatly on her seat during Trump’s answers and was focussed in her speaking.
Donald Trump seemed to take a tactic from Mike Pence, used at the Vice-Presidential debate. When his own words were quoted back to him, he simply denied saying them. For example, when his 3am tweet “check out sex tape” was mentioned, he simply denied he wrote “sex tape”. More Trump “alternative reality”.
Hillary Clinton made sure she addressed the questioners, such as “Mr Carter”, which was a good tactic.
On the accusation that Trump has paid no federal taxes for x years, Trump repeatedly said that Hillary Clinton did nothing to close the loophole he has used when she was a US Senator. Clinton retorted saying that she did vote to close the loophole. Trump interrupted to ask why she wasn’t effective in closing the loophole. She then patiently explained that there was a Republican President at the time and something called the Presidential veto.
There was a telling question at the end when a member of the audience asked each candidate if they could say something nice about the other. Clinton complimented Trump’s children and said they were a credit to him. Trump said: “She’s a fighter…she doesn’t quit”.
Trump did some work to shore up his support but I doubt he won over many new voters. There were no knock-out blows. It was a draw.
Democrats should be happy, because Trump did enough to avoid having to quit to let Mike Pence run instead (which couldn’t happen in all states anyway – it’s too late). That would be the nightmare scenario for Democrats.
Here’s a few words of snap verdict from Taegan Goddard of Political Wire:
Sometime over the last week — probably after the release of the video showing him bragging about sexual assault — Donald Trump realized he wasn’t going to win this election.
He’s now moved on to Plan B.
Trump’s pivot — starting with his “apology” video late Friday night — was to go full Breitbart. He’s now speaking only to the audience for a speculated media venture.
…Considering that backdrop, Clinton did a decent job. She was very smart to stick to audience questions and try to understand their concerns. Rather than needle Trump as she did in the first debate, she mostly tried to ignore him.
Clinton wasn’t perfect. Her answer on her emails was extremely weak. She left many of Trump’s attacks unanswered. But there’s only one candidate seriously running for president at this point. She won the debate hands down. It’s hard to imagine Trump won over even a single voter tonight.
Martha Raddatz and Anderson Cooper were also excellent moderators. If you ever need a moderator for a dumpster fire, they’re the ones to choose.
* Paul Walter is a Liberal Democrat activist and member of the Liberal Democrat Voice team. He blogs at Liberal Burblings.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Liberal Democrat MP suspended from party after arrest
Replacement?
Reform inadvertently lose their majority
Reform own goals
Trumps' White House thuggery appals the world including most Americans
Tristan Ward
Nonconformistradical
David Raw
Chloe
37 Comments
It is a shame that an 11 year old video overshadowed an amazing debate. Personally I thought Trump recovered tonight by winning the debate and early internet polls seem to support and convey this. Will it be enough to actually secure votes… I’m not so sure.
It was nice to see Trump back to his normal self. He certainly has flaws but the Clinton’s have not exactly been ‘America’s finest’, Trump out performed Hilary in this debate.
Great article by the way!
The first polls make Clinton the clear winner. Let’s hope so.
Clinton won but she had some difficult moments. I think her big problem is everyone knows she’s an establishment kind of figure but now she’s posing as being on the left so I thought it was effective when Trump said “what’s she been doing about these things for 30 years?”.
I thought Trump was embarrassing over Syria not to mention the obvious attacks on women.
Often on areas his answers are so empty he just keeps repeating adjectives saying “she has really bad judgement, really bad” without pointing to examples to back it up, sometimes.
The US need a new electoral system even more than we do because it is helping to divide America and how can last night’s debate be the cream of the crop of American politicians. It isnt, even though Hillary is good.
Eddie
“The US need a new electoral system even more than we do because it is helping to divide America and how can last night’s debate be the cream of the crop of American politicians.”
Quite right. I don’t agree Hillary is good but in a tastiest turd contest she is better. It is sad in a country of 300m people the came down two these two.
I thought Trump at times lapsed into incoherent rambling, raging and whataboutery. We’re not hearing that in the clips this morning.
Bewildering. Why is there so little outrage at the (not very) repressed violence and intimidation in his body language, his prowling around and hissing almost into her face “you should be in prison”. Farage said he behaved like a silver backed gorilla. Quite right – but normal people would think that was a negative not a positive!
The only reason I would vote for Clinton is that she’s not Trump. What a dispiriting choice.
A ‘draw’ is about right…Given the last week’s headlines Clinton should have ‘destroyed’ Trump; the fact that she didn’t was a reflection on how poor she actually is…
The real loser is the US; are these pair the’best’ that the country is offered?
For us in the LDs. Britain and Europe, the important issue is not to support either Mrs Clinton or Mr Trump, since there is nothing we can actually do about their competition. We need to wake up to our submission to the US and try to free ourselves from it. This will require a huge, long term effort involving financial, economic, cultural and political liberation.
From this, more realistic, point of view, the election of Mr Trump is likely to be the more beneficial in at least three ways.
1) As an outspoken, keen capitalist, he is less likely to embark on expensive, continuous armed conflicts in the tradition of Mr Bush, Mr Obama and Secretary of State Clinton.
2) The impact of such a win of such a win on our Main Stream Media and their trusting believers might might make their reporting of politics, economics and hybrid wars more accurate.
3) This, in turn, might help our politicians and ourselves to be better informed and so develop a fairer, more sustainable and more efficient Nation, Europe and even World.
We would benefit ourselves more if we concentrated on recapturing our independence instead of being an eager audience of a over powerful “Punch and Judy” show.
[From “The Trump Phenomenon — by Jean Bricmont http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/07/the-trump-phenomenon-as-seen-from-europe/%5D
For me Trump did enough and got at least a draw. I don’t like the guy and I agree with Ruth Bright that the physical intimidation coming from Trump was disgraceful – the moderators should have done more to stop it. However, it’s won’t get easier for Clinton in the 3rd debate, because Fox News are certainly no fans of her. I hope she wins, but to be fair her side have as stooped every bit as low as Trump’s in this campaign.
Next debate October 19 in Nevada.
Audience member Beth Miller asked “Perhaps the most important question of this election is the Supreme Court Justice. What would you prioritise as the most important aspect of selecting a Supreme Court Justice?”
Hillary Clinton replied that “This is one of the most important issues in this election.” She wanted “real life experience”
she wants “the Supreme Court to reverse ,”
to get “unaccountable money out of our politics”
“the Supreme Court to understand that voting rights are still a big problem in many parts of our country”
“do everything possible for people of colour and older people and younger people to be able to exercise their franchise”
“stick with Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose”
“Marriage Equality”.
To “reverse Roe v. Wade and reverse marriage equality would be a terrible mistake and would take us backwards.”
It should not “always side with corporate interests”
“change the balance on the Supreme Court”
“and regret deeply that the Senate has not done its job and they have not permitted a vote on the person that President Obama” (nominated)
“a highly qualified person”.
“that was a dereliction of duty”
“hope that they will see their way to doing it, but if I am fortunate enough to be President I will IMMEDIATELY move to ensure that we fill that, that we have nine ….”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage
Trump said that she is not a quitter and he admires that. (Neither is he, some votes have already been cast).
The instant Polls both gave Clinton a small lead but the general opinion of American commentators was that it would make little difference. We just have to hope that a lot of Trump supporters will think twice when it comes to it.
@paul barker
“We just have to hope that a lot of Trump supporters will think twice when it comes to it.”
I think you’ll also have to hope that a lot of Clinton supporters don’t think twice about it.
I try to make a study of human nature, even though it doesn’t always take you to a nice place, but I believe it does let me see things that many others miss.
Nothing draws crowds like the guillotine in the centre of the medieval town square. The modern equivalent are the Oscar Pistorious court case and the, O.J. Simpson court case.
When Trump said : “Because you’d be in jail…”, it drew gasps and cheers from an otherwise silent audience, not dissimilar to the gasps of a medieval crowd as the guillotine falls. That was the point where Trump turned the debate in his favour. I suspect,.. that the chance to see Hillary Clinton go through the courts [televised], and finally behind prison bars where she probably deserves to be, will be too much to resist, for Americans who utterly despise the Clintons, and their establishment backers.
Trump’s promise, to appoint a special prosecutor to oversee an investigation into Hillary Clinton, was the winning blow, because human nature will always *trump* politics.?
@J Dunn
I have a sneaky suspicion that you may be right about that. There may be a lot of people who don’t normally vote who would love to see a Clinton trial (or 2).
J Dunne.
There are even more Americans who think Trump is a laughable braggart reality TV nine-entity who’s mouth opens before it engages with Mr Brain and who’s iffy businesses spend more time in the red circle of death than an old Xbox 360. And a lot of them are card carrying Republicans. This is not a close election. He’s not going to take a single swing state based on the evidence so far and may very well dip as low as 36% when the result is called.
Glenn
Commentators were claiming Trump would not make it past the first few states in the Primary, then he would never win the primary, then he would be forced to withdraw.
Pollsters were predicting no Majority in the 2015 election, they predicted a remain vote in the referendum (all be it close).
The only poll that matters is the one on the day, and no matter how sure you are a bad outcome won’t be that bad there is always the opportunity for disappointment.
All that can be guaranteed is that the winner will be bad, all that is being decided is how bad.
Psi.
America is not Britain. It has a very different political system. You might as well be trying to draw conclusions based on Indian politics. American polling tends to be incredibly accurate.
And I disagree that they are both bad. Clinton is clearly miles better, more competent, more stable and much less of an embarrassment.
All this anti-Clinton hysteria is mystifying. Yes the republican swift-boat machine has been smearing for all its worth, but let’s hear something they’ve been able to substantiate!
I don’t see anything vastly different in Clinton to any other president. And Trump is a deeply vile bigoted narcissist who you wouldn’t trust to be a schoolteacher, a policemand or a local councillor. There is absolutely no contest here.
Glenn
Better can still be bad, as for the polling I have seen a bit that suggest that several polling firms are not correcting to make samples representative when they previously have. I’m not saying that is either right or not (we won’t know yet). I hope they are right, but noone should take too much comfort from polling, particularly this time.
I thought Trump won hands down as did most US comentators, including those on left-leaning MSNBC (Mika Bzrezinski and Joe Scarborough).
What amazes me about many posters on here is how they can ignore the blatant criminality of the Clintons, documented over many years. Hillary may have gotten away with it (for now) but how cn anyone defend her deleting 33,000 emails AFTER receiving a subpeona from Congress? Anyone else would go to jail but she’s above the law, I’m afraid to say.
I sincerely hope that none of the pro-Trump voices above (Carl, Steve Trevethan, J Dunn, Tsar Nicholas, and perhaps others) have the indecency or, indeed, the effrontery to call themselves Liberal Democrats. Donald Trump is the personification of the illiberal ethos, a would-be dictator. His analogues are Oswald Mosley, Enoch Powell, and (since he decided to imitate him) Nigel Farage. It’s a slur on the entire history of the Liberal Democrats to suggest that anyone in the party could, in good conscience, support or cheere on such a person.
Thank goodness for Glenn and Joe , I was wondering if I had been watching another impressive , intelligent , mainstream, moderate woman in American political life for over twenty years also called Hillary Clinton, not the one some describe ! I understand she is tainted by past scandals and certain mistakes, but as a person, a politician and president the idea they , these two candidates, are as bad as each other is an insult , not to Hillary Clinton, but to the values of Liberalism and Democracy as any of us here believe in those . For all the talk of how her views are not what our bleeding hearts want and I get that,she is very near to us on very many issues , really, and those matter. Refugees needs, the economy, tax policies , social programmes, affordable healthcare, women’s rights, childrens welfare , inclusive society, not to mention measured language , eloquence galore, likeability even, to me she is very good indeed as far as the representation we see. Of course the backdrop , of hers as well , yes , is not a clean one , but soiled, it is still a pretty sight compared to the view in the other corner, on any count , she wins hands down as a candidate.
Under normal circumstances, she would have won this debate , as she did the first. The circumstances were not normal and she did not win it . He did , if winning means staying in the race. If winning a debate is about tactics and attack dog style and determination to drive the points home , he won it .
He came into this debate , already aware he very nearly might have lost the election, and he came prepared. From the moment he told us all he had come with four accusers of the Clintons , she , not he ,was the defender, in body language and mood.It was a vulgar thing he did , like all he does, and it worked.She did not arrive with the Khan family , of the war hero ,she has them on her side, she did not arrive with the Miss Universe , Trump insulted ,she has on side, she did not have the thirty Republicans who have this weekend disowned their own candidate , sitting in the audience! His showy , nasty display , I think , rattled both Clintons.
But she shall , I believe , win , and it is imperative she does.
@David-1: I think that’s a tad of an over-the top reaction.
Trump may well be a racist, sexist, lying, spoilt, bullying narcissist who accepts endorsements of the KKK, and encourages a foreign power to undertake criminal acts to intervene in his country’s politics, and wants to rip up detente with Iran.
But he at least raises a couple of questions, exploiting a complacent, smug establishment on:
1. The slow drain of economic power by continual surrender of industry to China and other emerging economies, at the expense of less powerful parts of society
2. Not being a pro-war candidate. He doesn’t stoke up anti-Russian rhetoric, or mendaciously moralise with ” Liberal Imperialism” on the virtues of attacking particular regimes “to protect their people” like Republicans, Democrats and most of an uncritically partial western media.
3. Points out that quite a few Clinton fans, such as on this side of the pond, are very forgiving of Bill Clinton’s indiscretions, whilst often being very quick to raise predatory abuse of power for sexual favours everywhere else.
Heck, we even have LibDems on here who rhapsodise about the brilliance of Bill Clinton (way overrated imho, Carter & Obama are far better), who would never jump to the defense of others behaving inappropriately in more mild way, however brilliant at their job they may have been. Where is Channel 4’s determined Cathy Newman to harangue Hillary???
given the sheer effort the republican right has made to convict the Clintons of something anything at all they would be in jail if there was any substance to it. There is simply a segment of the republican right that wont accept that Bill Clinton was elected and that Hilary might well be. its the same crowd who brand Obama a Muslim terrorist simply because they cant accept a black man in the very white house and who defend trump’s talk as what men do.
The defence used by every wife beater and rapist.
well to quote a better man Ronald Reagan “Boys will be Boys, but Boys wont be President”
David-1
“pro-Trump voices above”
You are attributing opinions to people without evidence. I haven’t watched the Debate but a family member who did gave me a run through from their perspective, and though they also dislike both (and thought H won the first debate) they thought the second went for T. That is not that they think his policies are better or he is a better candidate, simply that he was better this time (communicating in language more likely to connect with voters, being more specific in attacks etc).
Others on here saying that he is using a tactic that is likely to be successful is not saying he is a force for good in the world, just that his campaign is playing the game well (whether or not you agree with that assessment).
clive english
I assume you believe that in the US the rich and powerful are always held to account? The question of “criminality” on a number of these “scandals” such as the treatment of classifications of government information, but others candidates would have suffered far more for the actions Clinton has taken to date if they:
1) Weren’t her;
2) Weren’t running against someone as objectionable as Trump.
Lorenzo
I normally agree with you but not on this one. Trump is the worst candidates but that doesn’t not make Clinton a good one. I can’t actually see any of the candidates who even started out in the primaries that I would have liked, which is why I think Eddie has it right on the US electoral system, when friends of mine have worked with candidates in the US (normally state level or below) I can see the candidate as someone who I can understand the appeal of. When we get to national levels there seems to be a kind of filter that just lets the worst through, if someone doesn’t make a break through from nowhere in one turn they have been gradually turned in to something worse by the time they get there.
My comment to clive english should have said:
The question of “criminality” on a number of these “scandals” such as the treatment of classifications of government information is not as clear cut as some would have you believe, but …
Thomas H-J — I don’t find david-1’s statement ‘over the top’.
Trump may (occasionally) put his finger on a genuine problem (in the same way that Farage and particularly Carswell do so for UKIP) but the solutions he offers are still largely bogus.
Another problem here is the ‘myth of Billary’. The Republicans know that the way to win is to make Hillary responsible in the public mind for her husband’s sexual misdeeds — not just for her defence or denial of them, but to treat her as if she knew about them in advance. Also, there is a clear suggestion in Republican discourse that the wife should be punished for the sins of the husband. With the help of the tabloids over years (and with the help of financial scandals she arguably or demonstrably was aware of) they have succeeded in totally enmeshing her in his scandal in the public mind. That is why Trump attacks so hard on this point. That is another reason I find him objectionable.
Overall, the binary black-and-white nature of the US presidential election removes one of the few attractions of its two-party system — that the parties themselves have the capacity to be very broad, diverse bodies.
It is interesting to consider what would happen to the party system there if the US adopted an equivalent of the French two-round system…
To be honest, I would put money on Hillary winning this election, but joining George Bush Snr as a one-term president. I think her overall unpopularity in the country as a whole and the right-ward shift of US politics in general makes her vulnerable to a more competent challenger than Trump who might be able to genuinely assemble a coalition around themselves that would go beyond one core, tribal, audience.
Four Democratic terms in succession looks highly unlikely, on past showing. No US party has gone that long in the Oval Office since Roosevelt was succeeded by Truman.
Matt (Bristol)
david-1 attributed views to other people then stating “I sincerely hope that none […] have the indecency or, indeed, the effrontery to call themselves Liberal Democrats”
Well I have noticed that it has become perfectly normal to approach discussion on here in this way. Where you make assumptions about someone else’s view (or just strawman them) and then dismiss them. Interestingly the perception (not unreasonably) of the LibDems is that they do this to voters too, which may explain why there hasn’t been any recovery in polling.
Perhaps if LibDems could learn to listen and understand the position of people on their own side before attacking, then they may be able to do so with those who are less likely to agree and may need to be persuaded.
That aside, I think your comparison with the French system is the right one, I think they would benefit from a change to that system. As to the terms I think there is a good change of whichever one wins being a one term president given the size of the unfavourables of both.
PSi — OK, I agree that several of the persons above are not as David claimed, posting comments supportive of Trump, they are instead posting comments sceptical about either Clinton herself, or her chances of winning.
I think I am however agreeing with him when he says it is hard to see how a LibDem could support Trump at all, and therefore implies that it is reasonable to expect a LibDem to, in most circumstances, therefore hope for Hillary win.
I think there are a limited number of circumstances where one could expect another LibDem to hold any specific view on a specific subject, but this is one of them, particularly given that even the UK Right seems to be hoping for a Hillary win, in the personage of a hint from “Now-You-Have-To-Call-Me-Lord” Hague in one of yesterday’s house of lords debates.
PS — If Trump wins, I don’t think he’ll make a full term, and I’d expect impeachment, and to be honest I could see it being a cross-party process, so much has he alienated ‘his’ own side.
I think Donald Trump has won both debates thus far and perhaps in the second debate a little clearer. The first thirty minutes were very uncomfortable to watch and you could see that Trump is incensed. The fact is though is that he shouldn’t have made those vulgar comments and his defence of ‘locker room talk’ is not valid. Trump’s comments were disgusting. That has been his campaign from day one though in making comments that cause offence.
It shouldn’t be forgotten that Clinton herself has made comments that are horrible or make you question her own moral convictions.
I disagree strongly with David-1 in saying that you cannot value liberalism or indeed be a Liberal Democrat unless Donald Trump is criticised and Hillary Clinton is not who is not a liberal. Clinton supports or did support the death penalty and didn’t stop the current president in his mass assassination drone program. Killing people without a trail or due process is absolutely illiberal.
If Trump loses in November, although I still think he has a chance of winning, I can see him running in 2020. Only that time as an independent. As long as he keeps his base on side he should have no problem getting above 15% to take part in the next debates. That said, I would not be surprised to see the CPD alter the rules. The mass media hysteria over Trump is profitable because he equals ratings. Therefore, he does have a major advantage in that respect.
As Donald Trump said America is a very divided country. Clinton and the political class have done everything to ignore this and Trump has done everything to make it a whole lot worse for his own political benefit. As others have said, this is a terrible choice for Americans in November. If the Democrats had a better candidate this contest would not likely be close, or as close as it has been.
The Republican party is having an internal crisis which Labour has and is going through in Britain. The supporters want something different to the party brass. Unlike in Britain though there is no party vehicle, but someone like Trump with his deep pockets doesn’t need that vehicle and can take the people with him. That could leave the GOP in trouble.
Reading this thread the depressing thing to me is how low the bar has now been set for declaration of a Trump win in a debate. All he has to do is draw attention to something bad in the current USA situation (without putting forward any coherent policy to fix it) or make what they call a “zinger” for people to ignore the utterly appalling person he has shown himself to be and the highly dangerous and destructive ideas he flings around at the drop of a hat. This is coupled with a gradual acceptance of the bile poured out about Hillary Clinton. She has made one bad mistake – wrongly and extensively using a personal email account, for which she has apologised. This has been closely investigated and seriously criticised but no adverse effect (such as hacking by hostile elements) was detected. What justification there is for the allegation that she is a serial liar I have no idea and to blame her for her husband’s philandering is plain disgusting. She was clearly a victim of this behaviour but decided to stick by him. Is that a crime?
I watched both debates live and noted the sensible and constructive contribution made by Clinton on nearly every subject plus her calm and unflappable demeanour in the presence of her incoherent and boorish rival. By any standards she won hands down on both occasions and I pray that nothing now stops her making it to the White House.
What Denis said.
BBC2 Newsnight on 26/10/2016 did a feature on Hillary Clinton, including a video from Donald Trump saying what a nice person she is. That was before the current Presidential election. There was a contribution from someone who knows her well. He wrote Primary Colors, authors credit on my bookshelf as “Anonymous”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_Colors_%28novel%29