As a general rule, presidential debates don’t change much. The winning and the losing matters much less than you think. Besides, most of the time partisans on either side can make a semi-decent case their candidate did what he had to do. The debates tend to reinforce existing notions more than they create new impressions.
Last night’s debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton might have been different. Because it wasn’t a debate in the normal, accepted, sense of the term. There were two candidates on the stage at Hofstra University but only one plausible president of the United States. It wasn’t so much Trump vs Clinton as Trump vs Himself. And Trump lost. Badly.
It’s a matter of significant statistical probability that I know people who will vote for Donald Trump in November. You may too. If he were just an ordinarily-bad candidate this might almost be reasonable. There are ample reasons for disliking, or failing to be enthused by, Hillary Clinton’s candidacy.
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in