clear
Tuesday, 27 September 2016
No Winner Yet
Share
clear

by Lorna Salzman

I watched the presidential debate on Sept. 26th even though I have managed to avoid reading the daily pap fed us about this quite boring campaign.

Who “won”? That’s the wrong question to ask. There were no winners. Each side scored some points and got stymied on others. It goes without saying that Trump was his usual uncivil  blustering overbearing self, and that Clinton was her usual poised, informed and qualified self.

If viewers and voters use the criteria of who was the more QUALIFIED person to lead our country, in terms of experience, knowledge and policy, clearly  Clinton was the winner. But unfortunately there is a lot of evidence that, despite the pundits’ and the public’s efforts to promote Clinton as the most qualified, that is not how voters vote. They vote from their gut, not their brain. They don’t pull out a checklist of issues and problems facing this country and then measure each candidate on how they would resolve them and then add up the numbers and vote accordingly. The public doesn’t vote that way…nor do any of you most likely. What voters want is a “real person”, someone who acts and reacts to events and pressures just like anyone would. In this kind of competition, it isn’t the smartest person who wins. It is the person who convinces you that he/she is not honest but AUTHENTIC.

In this debate and using this measure, Trump came out on top. Yes, of course he interrupted, was rude, dismissive, contemptuous, overbearing, obstructive, mendacious and made no attempt to convince you otherwise. And Clinton was the model of a very modern politician, one who could handle her responsibilities with confidence. In terms of expectations, both fulfilled them. But here’s the political reality. Clinton will obviously maintain her grip on enrolled Democrats, typical liberals (not the left), probably many independents, and some rational Republicans. But out there in middle America, and putting aside people who already dislike her and don’t necessarily like Trump, there are millions of ordinary folk who, if they are not ideologically suspicious of government to begin with, are innately more likely to support someone WHO IS LIKE THEM.

This is not to say that they have bought into the phony Republican populist, anti-elitist argument. These are people who rarely read the fine print in their newspapers, get their news from TV or friends or the internet, and who have zero interest in policy issues. For them Clinton’s decided superiority on issues and her knowledge of how Washington functions and her experience don’t count because they haven’t even followed enough of the news to make a judgement.

What these people saw last night was a very cool, skilled woman in complete command of herself and the issues…..and a man who was a big snarling sarcastic loudmouth, showing a range of emotions. Clinton exhibited a strange continual small smile, no anger, the perfect civil, unfazed debater in control of everything….and no emotions whatsoever, not a sign of anger, puzzlement, disturbance. One cool cookie vs. one big angry rude ignoramus. Of course you and the liberals and Democrats award her the prize for, presumably, looking good in the face of an irresponsible mendacious blowhard. But Trump got the prize from ordinary folks who weren’t looking for the perfect Washingtonian.

You’ve watched and read the moral outrage against Trump, his lies, his insolence, his defiance of all rules of engagement. There are now stacks of Outrage on the internet and in all the newspapers. all of them based on reality. Is moral outrage going to win the election? Hardly. Because there is a reason for all this outrage: the history of the Democratic Party. Note this, please: all of this tongue-lashing against Trump is monopolizing the media and the public space. But why? Not only because Trump is a bad joke but because attacking Trump is ALMOST ALL THE DEMOCRATS CAN DO. If you don’t have a record of accomplishment that you can be proud of, and if you have some really disastrous policies and actions you’d prefer to forget (Iraq, Syria, NAFTA, TPP, Wall St. worship, Benghazi, Obama’s bedding down with the Muslim Brotherhood), then focus on your opponent’s mistakes, temperament, lack of experience and mendacity.

And that is why Clinton is having a hard time: not only because she is not well liked but because she represents a party that has, by any measure, fallen short, to put it mildly, in all the areas of concern to citizens such as universal health care, income inequality, foreign trade, globalization, loss of jobs and the flight of corporations to foreign countries, etc. And try as they may to blame the Republicans for it, the Democrats are as much to blame as the Republicans for the sorry state of our economy, infrastructure, health care and energy systems.

This is why cursing Trump is not a winning strategy, and why an honest look at the Democratic Party’s failures and refusals will end up hurting Clinton. Voters may not be that bright but they are not going to be swayed by moral outrage at Trump. What might have swayed them is water over the dam, the failure of the Democrats to adopt and fulfill a progressive agenda like the one we might have had if Nader or Sanders had been elected. Having Wall St. and the liberal pundits and elites on your side (all of whose jobs and reputations are tied to the Democrats of course) isn’t enough.

 

Tags:
clear
Posted on 09/27/2016 12:37 PM by Lorna Salzman
Comments
27 Sep 2016
25cents
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0b7iiMG2Hr8

28 Sep 2016
Send an emailPaul Weston

Excellent article, thank you Lorna!

One other point to make is that many people will vote for Trump who won't actually admit it in public. I imagine they amount to at least 1-5 percentage points in terms of polling. So if the polls suggest it is tight, as they do, then I predict (and pray) for a Trump win.



28 Sep 2016
Send an emailDavid

Perhaps some can explain how Mr. Trump accepted a plan to use biased and hostile "moderators" in this debate, persons whose obvious purpose is to make Trump look bad.   There are many alternatives.  Why wasn't a distinguished judge found who knows how to be neutral in such a setting?   Or a fine scholar from the university could have hosted the event.  But, no, everyone went along with the idea of using hostile journalists, with predictable results.   Mr. Trump should make a formal objection and insist on getting on non-journalist to serve as host.  If not, he should withdraw, as the slanted forum is harming his candidacy.  Further, who came up with the idea of the moderator controlling events with "questions"?   All that was needed was a general theme for the candidates to talk about.  The format of the debate was utterly gratuitous and contrived -- yet accepted as though it were the rising sun.

If you study the recording of the debate you'll see that Clinton's camera angles were better than Trump's, and that the words floating behind her (over her left shoulder) were "most likely."  What clever fellow dreamed that up.   Take those words down.

Looking forward to a second and third debate is folly.  Damage has been done and the other "moderators" will be even more hostile than the first.  Trump was right.  The debates are totally rigged.  Do you voluntarily participate in rigged conversations?

Now we hear that Mr. Trump will go on the offensive by attacking Bill Clinton's sex life.  That is political seppuku.  We do not become President of the United States by standing before the world and talking about one's opponent's husband's indiscretions.  World War 3 is waiting in the wings.  Is anyone interested in that?  Real substantive issue abound, and ad hominem sleaze is self-defeating.   

Isn't Mrs. Clinton being investigated by the Department of Justice by the Attorneys General in the Southern District of New York?  (Yes, it's not "Secretary" Clinton, it's Mrs. Clinton).  THAT is where you fire your salvos.  

Right now it's all set up as highbrow versus lowbrow, with highbrow rigged to win.  Mr. Trump certainly needs to come out swinging but the issue is Mrs. Clinton misdeeds, especially as it relates to emails and the Clinton Foundation.   Her team members are up on Capitol Hill taking the Fifth Amendment while she prattles about Donald's "tax returns."

Bottom Line:   We have an opportunity to take this confederacy of dunces and turn it into a genuine campaign that doesn't insult the intelligence of educated voters, who need to have their noses rubbed in facts inconvenient for Clinton.

One more thing.  It's hard to see how she can pose as spirited reformer as she is a key member of the present administration.  That is, she is an incumbent, and is responsible for every mess she complains of.  WHY is that not stressed over and over?  Shouted from the rooftops?

The Trump campaign needs to wake up and put into practice the ideals and ideas Mr. Trump has put in play in his rousing speechs.   Attack Mrs. Clinton, sure, but if you hit below her spouse's belt you'll have a long time to regret the loss of the White House.





 

Subscribe

Categories

A.J. Caschetta (3) Alexander Murinson (1) Bat Ye'or (6) Brex I Teer (2) Brian of London (30) Christina McIntosh (812) Christopher DeGroot (1) Conrad Black (258) Daniel Mallock (1) David P. Gontar (7) David Solway (67) David Wemyss (1) Dexter Van Zile (73) Dr. Michael Welner (3) Emmet Scott (1) Esmerelda Weatherwax (8784) Fred Leder (1) Friedrich Hansen (7) G. Murphy Donovan (52) Gary Fouse (49) Geert Wilders (12) Geoffrey Clarfield (300) Hannah Rubenstein (3) Hugh Fitzgerald (20535) Ibn Warraq (7) Ilana Freedman (2) James Como (14) James Robbins (1) Jerry Gordon (2487) Jerry Gordon and Lt. Gen. Abakar M. Abdallah (1) Jesse Sandoval (1) John Constantine (118) John Hajjar (5) John M. Joyce (371) Jonathan Hausman (4) Joseph S. Spoerl (10) Kenneth Timmerman (25) Lorna Salzman (9) Louis Rene Beres (37) Mark Anthony Signorelli (11) Mark Durie (7) Mary Jackson (5064) Matthew Hausman (25) Michael Curtis (385) Mordechai Nisan (1) NER (2520) Nidra Poller (64) Nonie Darwish (3) Norman Berdichevsky (86) Paul Weston (5) Peter McLoughlin (1) Phyllis Chesler (1) Rebecca Bynum (7078) Richard Butrick (24) Richard Kostelanetz (16) Richard L. Benkin (21) Richard L. Cravatts (5) Richard L. Rubenstein (44) Robert Harris (78) Sam Bluefarb (1) Sha’i ben-Tekoa (1) Steve Hecht (22) Ted Belman (8) The Law (90) Theodore Dalrymple (750) Thomas J. Scheff (6) Thomas Ország-Land (3) Tom Harb (2) Walid Phares (23) z - all below inactive (7) z - Ares Demertzis (2) z - Andrew Bostom (74) z - Andy McCarthy (536) z - Artemis Gordon Glidden (881) z - DL Adams (21) z - John Derbyshire (1013) z - Marisol Seibold (26) z - Mark Butterworth (49) z- Robert Bove (1189) zz - Ali Sina (2)
clear
Site Archive