Tuesday, September 27, 2016
Clinton Wins Debate but Trump Wins First Battle
Clinton Wins Debate on Policy But Trump Wins the Battle
By Michael S. Nixon
If we score last night's debate on the Marcus of Queensberry rules, by all objective measures, Hillary Clinton soundly beat Donald Trump in the first presidential debate. She was clearly well-versed on every issue and delivered her responses deftly which speaks to her preparation to hold the nation's highest office. Her performance was nearly pitch perfect if we are to look at the debate as an academic exercise. Unfortunately as we've learned throughout the history of presidential debates, performance rather than substance often matters most. Last night was one of those instances. Secretary Clinton's continuous directive to viewers to visit her website to find out her plans to battle ISIS or to fix the economy and her appeal to viewers to buy her book, demonstrated her inability or lack of understanding of how to to connect to the audience. Trump on the other hand with the possible exception of his answers about the Trans-Pacific Partnership and issues involving the economy, was bereft of any substantive responses. However in my opinion he connected with the viewers through the passion he displayed. That will play well with his base and more importantly with many undecided voters. Unfortunately as we all know in the age of the Kardashians, style often trumps substance, pun very much intended. Dismiss Trump's substanceless performance if you will. However if Hillary's goal was to disqualify Trump as a serious presidential candidate, she failed. Unfair as it may be to have much a lower standard for Trump, it is one of the unfortunate realities of this campaign. If this election were about issues , preparedness competence, policies or intelligence, Clinton would be winning this election going away. The fact that she is not speaks volumes about the mindset of the American electorate this year. Unfortunately in the age of reality television this presidential election is not about issues. Clearly for some voters it's a referendum on the style and personality of the candidates. Whichever candidate makes voters feel like he or she is speaking directly to them and hears their concerns will win this race. It is telling that this debate seemed to be a microcosm of the Republican primary presidential debates. I've watched the political pundits over the last several hours and it is clear that, with the possible exception of Mika Brzezinski of Morning Joe, and Sean Hannity,most pundits believe Trump did not do anything to help his campaign. How many times during the Republican Presidential debates did we watch Trump give a similar debate performance, South Carolina comes to mind, and believe that Trump had lost the debate only to find out later that based on poll numbers an actual primary results that the voters saw it differently? As an ardent Hillary Clinton supporter it pains me to say that the same dynamic was at work last night. Fortunately for the Clinton campaign she will have two more opportunities to disqualify Donald Trump. To win this election, Secretary Clinton must ramp up the enthusiasm of her base of supporters. A bit of advice if I can be so presumptuous, Secretary Clinton please talk to the voters more directly and show a lot more passion. Both will serve you well. It's one thing to be measured in the tone of your answers to demonstrate that you have the temperament to be the commander-in-chief,it's another to come across as dispassionate as you did last night. Go after Trump even more aggressively in the next two debates. That is the only way to slay the Dragon. Secretary Clinton did a masterful job but failed to accomplish her goal. Trump is still very much in the race. I'm certain the polls post debate will show that. Let's hope that she doesn't make the mistake that 16 Trump opponents made...Don't underestimate Donald Trump at your own peril.
©Politicomm 2016
By Michael S. Nixon
If we score last night's debate on the Marcus of Queensberry rules, by all objective measures, Hillary Clinton soundly beat Donald Trump in the first presidential debate. She was clearly well-versed on every issue and delivered her responses deftly which speaks to her preparation to hold the nation's highest office. Her performance was nearly pitch perfect if we are to look at the debate as an academic exercise. Unfortunately as we've learned throughout the history of presidential debates, performance rather than substance often matters most. Last night was one of those instances. Secretary Clinton's continuous directive to viewers to visit her website to find out her plans to battle ISIS or to fix the economy and her appeal to viewers to buy her book, demonstrated her inability or lack of understanding of how to to connect to the audience. Trump on the other hand with the possible exception of his answers about the Trans-Pacific Partnership and issues involving the economy, was bereft of any substantive responses. However in my opinion he connected with the viewers through the passion he displayed. That will play well with his base and more importantly with many undecided voters. Unfortunately as we all know in the age of the Kardashians, style often trumps substance, pun very much intended. Dismiss Trump's substanceless performance if you will. However if Hillary's goal was to disqualify Trump as a serious presidential candidate, she failed. Unfair as it may be to have much a lower standard for Trump, it is one of the unfortunate realities of this campaign. If this election were about issues , preparedness competence, policies or intelligence, Clinton would be winning this election going away. The fact that she is not speaks volumes about the mindset of the American electorate this year. Unfortunately in the age of reality television this presidential election is not about issues. Clearly for some voters it's a referendum on the style and personality of the candidates. Whichever candidate makes voters feel like he or she is speaking directly to them and hears their concerns will win this race. It is telling that this debate seemed to be a microcosm of the Republican primary presidential debates. I've watched the political pundits over the last several hours and it is clear that, with the possible exception of Mika Brzezinski of Morning Joe, and Sean Hannity,most pundits believe Trump did not do anything to help his campaign. How many times during the Republican Presidential debates did we watch Trump give a similar debate performance, South Carolina comes to mind, and believe that Trump had lost the debate only to find out later that based on poll numbers an actual primary results that the voters saw it differently? As an ardent Hillary Clinton supporter it pains me to say that the same dynamic was at work last night. Fortunately for the Clinton campaign she will have two more opportunities to disqualify Donald Trump. To win this election, Secretary Clinton must ramp up the enthusiasm of her base of supporters. A bit of advice if I can be so presumptuous, Secretary Clinton please talk to the voters more directly and show a lot more passion. Both will serve you well. It's one thing to be measured in the tone of your answers to demonstrate that you have the temperament to be the commander-in-chief,it's another to come across as dispassionate as you did last night. Go after Trump even more aggressively in the next two debates. That is the only way to slay the Dragon. Secretary Clinton did a masterful job but failed to accomplish her goal. Trump is still very much in the race. I'm certain the polls post debate will show that. Let's hope that she doesn't make the mistake that 16 Trump opponents made...Don't underestimate Donald Trump at your own peril.
©Politicomm 2016
Clinton.Wins Debate but Trump Wins First Battle
Clinton Wins Debate on Policy But Trump Wins the Battle
By Michael S. Nixon
If we score last night's debate on the Marcus of Queensberry rules, by all objective measures, Hillary Clinton soundly beat Donald Trump in the first presidential debate. She was clearly well-versed on every issue and delivered her responses deftly which speaks to her preparation to hold the nation's highest office. Her performance was nearly pitch perfect if we are to look at the debate as an academic exercise. Unfortunately as we've learned throughout the history of presidential debates, performance rather than substance often matters most. Last night was one of those instances. Secretary Clinton's continuous directive to viewers to visit her website to find out her plans to battle ISIS or to fix the economy and her appeal to viewers to buy her book, demonstrated her inability or lack of understanding of how to to connect to the audience. Trump on the other hand with the possible exception of his answers about the Trans-Pacific Partnership and issues involving the economy, was bereft of any substantive responses. However in my opinion he connected with the viewers through the passion he displayed. That will play well with his base and more importantly with many undecided voters. Unfortunately as we all know in the age of the Kardashians, style often trumps substance, pun very much intended. Dismiss Trump's substanceless performance if you will. However if Hillary's goal was to disqualify Trump as a serious presidential candidate, she failed. Unfair as it may be to have much a lower standard for Trump, it is one of the unfortunate realities of this campaign. If this election were about issues , preparedness competence, policies or intelligence, Clinton would be winning this election going away. The fact that she is not speaks volumes about the mindset of the American electorate this year. Unfortunately in the age of reality television this presidential election is not about issues. Clearly for some voters it's a referendum on the style and personality of the candidates. Whichever candidate makes voters feel like he or she is speaking directly to them and hears their concerns will win this race. It is telling that this debate seemed to be a microcosm of the Republican primary presidential debates. I've watched the political pundits over the last several hours and it is clear that, with the possible exception of Mika Brzezinski of Morning Joe, and Sean Hannity,most pundits believe Trump did not do anything to help his campaign. How many times during the Republican Presidential debates did we watch Trump give a similar debate performance, South Carolina comes to mind, and believe that Trump had lost the debate only to find out later that based on poll numbers an actual primary results that the voters saw it differently? As an ardent Hillary Clinton supporter it pains me to say that the same dynamic was at work last night. Fortunately for the Clinton campaign she will have two more opportunities to disqualify Donald Trump. To win this election, Secretary Clinton must ramp up the enthusiasm of her base of supporters. A bit of advice if I can be so presumptuous, Secretary Clinton please talk to the voters more directly and show a lot more passion. Both will serve you well. It's one thing to be measured in the tone of your answers to demonstrate that you have the temperament to be the commander-in-chief,it's another to come across as dispassionate as you did last night. Go after Trump even more aggressively in the next two debates. That is the only way to slay the Dragon. Secretary Clinton did a masterful job but failed to accomplish her goal. Trump is still very much in the race. I'm certain the polls post debate will show that. Let's hope that she doesn't make the mistake that 16 Trump opponents made...Don't underestimate Donald Trump at your own peril.
©Politicomm 2016
By Michael S. Nixon
If we score last night's debate on the Marcus of Queensberry rules, by all objective measures, Hillary Clinton soundly beat Donald Trump in the first presidential debate. She was clearly well-versed on every issue and delivered her responses deftly which speaks to her preparation to hold the nation's highest office. Her performance was nearly pitch perfect if we are to look at the debate as an academic exercise. Unfortunately as we've learned throughout the history of presidential debates, performance rather than substance often matters most. Last night was one of those instances. Secretary Clinton's continuous directive to viewers to visit her website to find out her plans to battle ISIS or to fix the economy and her appeal to viewers to buy her book, demonstrated her inability or lack of understanding of how to to connect to the audience. Trump on the other hand with the possible exception of his answers about the Trans-Pacific Partnership and issues involving the economy, was bereft of any substantive responses. However in my opinion he connected with the viewers through the passion he displayed. That will play well with his base and more importantly with many undecided voters. Unfortunately as we all know in the age of the Kardashians, style often trumps substance, pun very much intended. Dismiss Trump's substanceless performance if you will. However if Hillary's goal was to disqualify Trump as a serious presidential candidate, she failed. Unfair as it may be to have much a lower standard for Trump, it is one of the unfortunate realities of this campaign. If this election were about issues , preparedness competence, policies or intelligence, Clinton would be winning this election going away. The fact that she is not speaks volumes about the mindset of the American electorate this year. Unfortunately in the age of reality television this presidential election is not about issues. Clearly for some voters it's a referendum on the style and personality of the candidates. Whichever candidate makes voters feel like he or she is speaking directly to them and hears their concerns will win this race. It is telling that this debate seemed to be a microcosm of the Republican primary presidential debates. I've watched the political pundits over the last several hours and it is clear that, with the possible exception of Mika Brzezinski of Morning Joe, and Sean Hannity,most pundits believe Trump did not do anything to help his campaign. How many times during the Republican Presidential debates did we watch Trump give a similar debate performance, South Carolina comes to mind, and believe that Trump had lost the debate only to find out later that based on poll numbers an actual primary results that the voters saw it differently? As an ardent Hillary Clinton supporter it pains me to say that the same dynamic was at work last night. Fortunately for the Clinton campaign she will have two more opportunities to disqualify Donald Trump. To win this election, Secretary Clinton must ramp up the enthusiasm of her base of supporters. A bit of advice if I can be so presumptuous, Secretary Clinton please talk to the voters more directly and show a lot more passion. Both will serve you well. It's one thing to be measured in the tone of your answers to demonstrate that you have the temperament to be the commander-in-chief,it's another to come across as dispassionate as you did last night. Go after Trump even more aggressively in the next two debates. That is the only way to slay the Dragon. Secretary Clinton did a masterful job but failed to accomplish her goal. Trump is still very much in the race. I'm certain the polls post debate will show that. Let's hope that she doesn't make the mistake that 16 Trump opponents made...Don't underestimate Donald Trump at your own peril.
©Politicomm 2016
Monday, September 26, 2016
See Common for Free in Philly
International Superstar and activist, Common will perform a free outdoor concert in Philly on Saturday, October 8th as part of the Neighborhood to Neighborhood Festival. Location: 50th & Baltimore Ave. in West Philadelphia. Time: NOON . It will be a great day of family fun. See you there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)