Really disappointed that Clinton last night didn’t mention Trump’s single-year businesses losses of $916 million and his habitual stiffing of employees and contractors, and didn’t directly protest Wallace’s absurd the-stimulus-led-to-the-slow-growth assertion
After the first debate, there was some criticism of Clinton that she came off as “too prepared”—a semantic contrast to Trump’s lack of preparation—and then criticism of the criticism: How can someone be too prepared for something?
The answer to that question is that what was really meant by “too prepared” was “too programmed.”
That was true again last night to some extent, in my opinion, particularly when she didn’t respond to Trump’s bragging about his business prowess that Trump’s businesses lost $916 million in a single year and that he habitually stiffs employees and contractors. Instead she just mentioned that Trump started his business with a yuge loan from his multimillionaire father—an important point, but one that should have been joined to a comment noting that he lost $916 million in a single year and that he habitually stiffs employees and contractors.
That’s a point Clinton has made many times, including at each of the two earlier debates, when, granted, it mattered more. But the points are key to so much deconstructing Trump’s claim to business genius and also as critical evidence of his sociopathology. I hope she places this at the center of ads and rally comments going forward.
Clinton also failed to explicitly correct a glaring and really significant misstatement of fact by Chris Wallace, when he said that the low level of economic growth was caused by—led to—the 2009 Obama stimulus program. That was a preposterous falsehood, and I wondered whether any pundit would actually catch that and make an issue of it.
Thankfully, one did. Thank you, Professor Krugman. And I bet (and hope) you discuss it fully in your column tomorrow.
Look, I fully recognize that Clinton is at this point emotionally exhausted—really drained—as is Trump. It was evident on both of their faces almost from beginning to end last night. And on balance, she did fine, I thought.
But her very best moment last night came in a spontaneous comment, when she retorted, “Well, that’s because he [Putin] wants a puppet.” Obviously, it’s important to come to a debate armed with specific points to get across. But that should not preclude responding extemporaneously to statements by your opponent or by the moderator.
Can’t settle on a win? I thought the Cubs shouldn’t have allowed two runs last night.
Clinton let slide several outlandish misstatements by Trump about the recovery, job growth, and such. Several. I just saw a clip of Trump this morning at a rally in Ohio saying that the only issue that matters is “jobs, jobs, jobs,” and repeating some of his falsehoods from last night.
This isn’t good, Jack. I don’t think Trump has a chance to win, but Clinton should not just allow these things to go uncorrected. I’d love to see Obama and Bernie make high-profile campaign appearances, especially in Ohio and Wisconsin, and refute these–and point out what a disaster Trump’s fiscal plan would be for the economy as well as for income and wealth inequality.
Clinton did make those points about Trump’s fiscal plan last night, but very late in the debate, and only once. I hope he swings into talking a lot about this in ads and rallies.
Oh–and how ’bout dem Cubs?! Or as my uncle used to say, “Da Cubbies.”
Clinton did mention the tax savings, “Donald didn’t pay any federal taxes,” as an indirect reference to the tax loss. That led to Trump’s absurd excuse that she should have changed the tax laws. Explaining depreciation would be too complicated for a debate. She could have made a little more out of the need to change that aspect of the tax law. Depreciating an appreciating asset is itself ridiculous.
She certainly should have come back at Trump, when he claimed to be the great businessman savior that the country need, by noting the six bankruptcies and the 1000 law suits filed against him and the Trump Organization by the vendors and employees stiffed over the years.
I’d say it’s a good bet that neither Clinton nor Trump know enough Keynesian economics to come back at Wallace quickly after his own ignorant remark. Likely that Keynes is not popular amongst the top tier talking heads of the modern media.
Over all she did pretty well, especially compared to the Donald, whose performance could only have appealed to his established base and his coterie of surrogates. What HRC needs to do over the next three weeks is run the disability ad continuously; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67Z8A2Jo4Wg
Actually, Clinton’s eyes widened in surprise at the phrasing of the question. I think she considered for an instant responding directly to that. I’m guessing that she made the instant decision not to because she figured that the public interpreted the question as one about slow growth rather than about the stimulus causing the slow growth–since the idea of the stimulus CAUSING slow growth is so asinine that she figured that no one would think that that’s what Wallace meant.
So instead she discussed the reason for the slow growth: the depth of the recession and financial industry crisis that Obama inherited. I wish she’d corrected Wallace, but the phrasing of he question was so odd, and took her completely by surprise, and she made a split-second decision about how to handle it.
One thing I’m pretty sure of is that Clinton understands basic Keynesian economics. She, like Obama, just shies away from explaining it.
I have to admit I’m looking forward to the tell all books that have to be coming out next year after The Donald’s campaign staff finds out they aren’t getting their last paychecks.
Even with a reputed $5M non-disclosure penalty there has to be a publisher somewhere who will pony up the dough.
Basically two minute responses(including interruptions).
If you want to criticize the performance as not including all of your wants, then you have to figure out what parts of her replies you want to remove.
What is the matter? You do not like Dear Abby type of posts, a constant steam of them?
A part of her Second Amendment focus. Parts of her reiterations re the Miss Universe and the rest of the litany of Trump insults. For starters.
It would have taken about 15 seconds to mention each of the things I mentioned–which others have mentioned, too.
How hard is it, really, to figure out that the game here is in motivating millennials to vote–for her and for down-ballot Dems, especially in close Senate races–and in getting Rust Belt blue collar folks, including union members, to vote for her and down-ballot Dems. And that the incessant repetition of the things she incessantly repeats is unlikely to win votes that it has not already won?
Pretty hard, I guess. Almost as hard as rocket science, apparently.
You know it’s like a football fan talking about the game his team won by twenty points complaining, “why did we run the ball so much?”
Yup. Cuz what’s partly at issue in a football game’s margin of victory is getting some of those, say, Lions fans to root also for the Bears.
Second Amendment Focus:
“And now, in fact, in the 2008 Heller case the court ruled that there is a constitutional right to bear arms, but a right that is reasonably limited. Those were the words of the judge Antonin Scalia, who wrote the decision. What’s wrong with that?”
Yeah, she should have ignored the question. Though I think an awful lot of ” Rust Belt blue collar folks: are hunters, and are concerned about this issue. But that could just be me remembering the opening of deer season every year in the rust belt.
I could go on, but it is a waste of time.
I first say Bernie sanders speak back in the 90s. The best man at my weddings(both of them) has lived in Burlington since the late 70s.
I can tell you with very few changes, Bernie has been using the same “incessant repetition” of that speech for a couple of decades.