Open Thread for Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Filed in National by on September 27, 2016

Wow. This just happened. Wow.

Andrew Sullivan:

What can one say? I was afraid that Trump’s charisma and stage presence and salesmanship might outshine Hillary Clinton’s usually tepid and wonkish instincts. I feared that the facts wouldn’t matter; that a debate would not take place. And it is to Clinton’s great credit that she prepared, and he didn’t, and that she let him hang himself.

His utter lack of preparation; his doubling down on transparent lies; his foreign-policy recklessness; his racial animosity; his clear discomfort with the kind of exchange of views that is integral to liberal democracy; his instinctual belligerence — all these suggest someone who has long lived in a deferential bubble that has become filled with his own reality.

Clinton was not great at times; her language was occasionally stilted; she missed some obvious moments to go in for the kill; but she was solid and reassuring and composed. I started tonight believing she needed a game-changer to alter the trajectory of this race. I may, of course, be wrong, trapped in my own confirmation bias and bubble — but I thought she did just that.

I’ve been a nervous wreck these past two weeks; my nerves are calmed now.

Joan Walsh at The Nation:

Trump came in unprepared and winging it, and he never got more serious or grounded in policy or detail as the night went on. Clinton found a way to sound competent without being overbearing or scolding. From early on Trump hectored her, interrupting and talking over her, and she handled it with aplomb. She regularly advised the audience to check her Web site, HillaryClinton.com, for real-time fact-checking. “Donald, I know you live in your own reality,” she said calmly. And it gradually became clear she was right.


Jonathan Chait
:

The final exchange of the debate was the most devastating. Clinton lacerated Trump for his dehumanization of women — the kind of sexualization that offends social conservatives and social liberals alike. She brought up his abuse of one of his beauty-pageant contestants — noting, as an aside, his fondness for hanging around them — and that he called one contestant “Miss Piggy” and, because she is Latina, “Miss Housekeeper.” When Trump fell for the trap by demanding her name, Clinton supplied it: Alicia Machado, driving home the justifiable impression that Clinton sees her as a human being, unlike her opponent, who sees her as a piece of meat. His response consisted of whining that her campaign was spending money to attack him in advertisements. […]

The contrast between an obviously and eminently qualified public servant and a ranting bully was as stark as any presidential debate in American history.

Taegan Goddard:

On the substance of the debate, Clinton was the clear winner. She was controlled and methodical in making her case. Trump was constantly interrupting and spit out jumbled talking points that sounded like they came from some obscure corner of the Internet. It wasn’t even close. Clinton crushed him.

Let’s face it: Anytime Trump has to defend questioning President Obama’s birthplace, it’s not going to be a good night for him. Trump’s answer was complete nonsense. Clinton was ready and called it “a racist lie.” His lies continued while claiming to have opposed the Iraq war from the beginning. Although it won’t matter much, the fact checkers had a field day with Trump once again.

Towards the end of the debate, Trump claimed his “strongest asset” was his temperament. He did so while interrupting moderator Lester Holt and yelling at Clinton. It’s clear Trump doesn’t really know what “temperament” means. In our polarized country, both candidates probably solidified their bases. But for those still undecided or those leaning towards a third party candidate, it should be clear that Clinton is the one better prepared for this moment.

Glenn Thrush: “Trump is supposed to be the big meanie but it was Clinton who hit him where it hurt most. It doesn’t take a Jung (or even Dr. Phil after a couple of Bud Lights) to figure out that the GOP nominee – who boasts like a barfly – just might be over-compensating. Hence, Clinton, who started the debate a little tentatively, quickly launched into a carefully planned program of Freudian mind-games, contrasting her own middle-class businessman dad (who had his own issues) with Trump’s imperious, larger-than-life father Fred who launched his son’s business career but also was said to be extremely tough on him.”

Dan Drezner: “This will be short and sweet. Hillary Clinton wiped the floor with Donald Trump in the first presidential debate Monday night. But it was the way in which she wiped the floor with him that was so interesting.”

Ross Douthat: “More, as ever in this campaign, he showed no ability to evade or duck or simply retreat on issues — his business dealings and his taxes, birtherism and racism — where long Trumpish answers make things only worse.”

Ezra Klein: “The first presidential debate featured a man who didn’t know what he was talking about repeatedly shouting over a woman who was extraordinarily prepared.”

Chris Cillizza: “This was a clear win for her on virtually every front.”

About the Author ()

Comments (6)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. mikem2784 says:

    Most notable to me on my facebook feed and elsewhere is the silence of his supporters. They won’t openly admit the loss, but they won’t brag about his win because it clearly wasn’t. I’m just hoping whoever the hell the undecided are realize it.

  2. puck says:

    The voters are pretty much locked in already. Trump’s debate performance will put a halt to his perceived momentum in the media.

  3. cassandra_m says:

    Donald Trump, A Failed Bully in His Debate with Clinton

    Trump’s bully’s instinct for his opponent’s weakness seemed to desert him. In his Republican Primary debates, he had zeroed in on ways to make his opponents seem small. But even in his most effective moments against Clinton—as when he said that “all of the things that she’s talking about could have been taken care of during the last ten years, let’s say, while she had great power,” and railed against her for pushing trade deals and American involvement in Libya, “another one of her disasters”—he conceded that she was, to borrow his phrase, big league. In his rallies, he has caricatured her as a grubby hack and as “Crooked Hillary,” an easily bought crony. She made him acknowledge her experience and her preparation. When he wound up his riff about his winning temperament and the goings-on behind blue screens, Clinton let out a half-laughing “Whew!,” with a big smile and shake-it-off wiggle of her shoulders. (Some of her relieved supporters may have been breaking out a similar move at home.) Then she talked about NATO.

  4. Brian says:

    Last night post-debate, Rachel Maddow mentioned voters parked in the Gary Johnson column and whether they will now begin to move out of that column as the binary choice becomes more and more clear. Those are the voters that have to shift one way or the other. I don’t think there’s any question that Johnson’s high single digit polling will start to recede to Green Party numbers, but where do those voters go once they take it out of park and put it into drive.

    I think about whether those voters are so pissed off at the way things are that they’ll change their protest vote from Johnson to Trump or if enough of them are swayed to vote for the lesser of two evils and vote Clinton. Neither side’s supporters were affected last night.

    As one lovely lady in Ohio put it last night on MSNBC “I’m voting for the Conservative party, and if this jackass is the one to lead that mule train, so be it.”

  5. ScarletWoman says:

    Can somebody please explain who is the “white college-educated married woman from the suburbs of Philadelphia” who still thinks Trump is a viable choice? Is it a Bryn Mawr grad who was rejected by Wellesley? What could possibly attract that voter to this ignorant schoolyard bully and misogynist?

  6. AQC says:

    It’s the Mika’s of the world; the ones willing to play dumb for the clearly dumber male in the room.