Uncertain Minds
Going into last night’s debate, I thought that any outcome was possible; the only thing I felt I could confidently predict was that it would be the most-watched debate ever, perhaps even approaching the 100-million-plus viewer stratosphere of the Super Bowl. We’ll have to wait for those numbers. But regarding what transpired on the stage at Hofstra (covered in detail by my colleague Matt Sitman) I’d score the debate as a clear but not annihilating victory for Hillary. It's a sorry statement that all Trump had to do, in order to claim victory, was appear halfway civil (no talk about his penis or Hillary's “whatever”) and halfway coherent. Did he manage it? Halfway civil, I’d say yes – though his badgering, bellicose style intermittently emerged, as it did when the topic turned to trade agreements, and he shouted, flailed his arms, and repeatedly interrupted. (Hillary’s gambit throughout the night was to chuckle indulgently at “Donald’s” excesses, as if fondly scolding an errant schoolboy for his naughtiness and noise, while slipping in deft attempts to bait him.)
As for halfway coherent, well, maybe. But only just halfway. Or maybe only a quarter way. Again and again Trump’s answers rambled, so that it was impossible to see what kind of logical connection he was making -- at one point, moderator Lester Holt said, with exasperation, “You’re unpacking a lot here” -- and disclosed habits of mind that at times seemed downright weird (as when a discussion about international cyber-war led him to ruminate that the guilty hacker might not be Russia or China, but “someone sitting on their bed who weighs 400 pounds.” Come again?) Hillary, meanwhile, frequently offered answers that were well-informed and well-organized. On race and crime, for instance, Trump did little more than incant the Nixonian mantra of “two words – law and order,” while Hillary offered a mini-lecture that was comprehensive, nuanced and emphatic. She really crushed him on this topic, offering both policy recommendations and a core vision and rationale for them. Trump managed several effective zingers over the course of the evening, but the overall impression he left – on me, anyway – was of a mind that struggles to comprehend, focus, organize and explain in any of the conventional ways that we associate with executive intelligence and the skills of a leader.
All that said, I don’t imagine that the debate will prove to be a game-changer for voters. Or that it’s even a mind-changer. But that begs the question of whose mind at this point might still remain to be changed. And that’s actually what I want to address – that’s who I want to address – with the rest of this post.
Add a new comment
