David:
That was a bit of fun, blogging in real-time during the debate. We'll have to repeat during the next one, if the polling still looks close.
Doug:
That was a real marathon. I was exhausted after the live-debate. A real mental exercise: writing, reading, and listening. Why only live-debate if it is close? Isn't as interesting regardless?
David:
If nothing is riding on the debates, who cares? Although plenty of people may still watch, hoping for a train wreck.
Listening to some post-debate pundits discussing the results, it looks like we were pretty spot on. Trump appeared strong in the first 30 minutes, but missed a lot of opportunities. Clinton stayed slow and steady during the last portion, and looked presidential during that portion.
Doug:
That is nice of you to say that. Many Republicans would never be able to admit that she "looked presidential".
David:
He will likely do a little bit of prep work before the next debate. He missed a lot of low-hanging fruit, and clearly feels a strong urge to defend himself whenever he feels attacked. He needs to learn to pivot to the issues when you get a biased question, or if you get a question that hits on your weaknesses. Bill Clinton was a master at that tactic. Every question ended up with a discussion about the economy.
But I'm not sure that anyone was moved. Media pundits believe Clinton won, and online polling indicates Trump won.
Doug:
Well, online polling is just a gang of people getting other people to vote. That is in no way an unbiased sample. In fact, it is self-selected, the worse kind of biased sample. So, I wouldn't even look at online poll results. Media pundits probably all prefer the status quo. Besides, the entire venture of determining a "winner" is missing the point. We all win for being able to hear the candidates think on their feet.
David:
Online polling, then, does show which candidate has enthusiasm on their side. People who will get other people to vote for their candidate in a poll have to be motivated. Even the MSNBC and TIME online polls were 70-30 for Trump. Trump supporters would have had to go to liberal websites just to alter results. That effort takes some enthusiasm to support your candidate.
Doug:
Sure, I'd be glad to concede that online polls measure enthusiasm (or orchestrated activism) for a candidate. But that has no bearing on who actually "won" the debate. Nor does it have any indication on the probable outcome of the election. That could explain why Romney was very certain that he had won the last one.
David:
I do think that Lester Holt displayed too much favoritism. He hammered Trump with repeated follow-up questions, but didn't for Hillary. His question to Trump about his tax returns was longer than Hillary's answer about her emails, an issue that continues to drip, drip, drip as we're writing. And she had no follow up questions.
Doug:
It must be hard to be fair between two people who are so uneven. False equivalency might lead you to think that Trump's tax issue is on the same level as Clinton's email server. Lester seemed to do a very good job. I can't think of anything that he could have improved upon. Well, maybe stop Trump from interrupting Clinton so much. That was very disruptive.
David:
He asked Trump six (6) follow up questions during the debate, and asked Clinton zero (0). That's unfair. It's not his job to decide which unanswered questions about the candidates is more important. If he did, he certainly would not have spent so much time on the birther issue. But apparently that issue is more important than Cheryl Mills getting immunity for her laptop during the FBI investigation. If there was no criminality involved in the e-mail/server case, how did so many people either get immunity, or plead the 5th Amendment? But there was only one question about emails, and no follow up to the entire email story. Of course, Trump should have pivoted and brought up those issues himself, as well. His loss.
Doug:
The moderator does get to decide all of those things. That is exactly what the moderator does. Because you have a strong sense of false equivalency does not mean that others need to adopt it. Trump is in left field, and Holt correctly treated him that way. If you claim for most of the previous president's term that he is not even a citizen of this country, prepare to defend yourself, big league!
I thought the debate was useful for getting to know the character of the two candidates away from their orchestrated events. One of the most surprising to me was Trump's reaction to the recession. Clinton pointed out that Trump was making money while millions of people were losing their homes. Trump replied: "that's called business." When he claimed that he was "smart" for not paying any taxes, he doesn't seem to understand that creates a burden on the middle class taxpayers to make up the difference. I came away thinking that this man has no empathy for anyone else. That may be the biggest realization for some in these debates.
David:
If the rules allow rich people to avoid taxes, then the rules need to change. That's the message that Trump failed to capitalize on. There are rules for rich people, orchestrated by corrupt politicians that get big donations from those same rich people (like Hillary), and then there are rules for everyone else. He's avoided taxes by using this system. He's promised to fix this system of loopholes. And, he is smart to use the system when he can. You and I both take advantage of every means to pay less taxes.
Doug:
Another useful discussion was when he was attempting to make the point that you should "just call Hannity" to see what Trump's position was prior to the war. Trump was a private citizen at that time (and of course still in the media). You can't have it both ways: you can't be a private citizen, and also claim that you had a well-known position at that time, verifiable by calling calling your friend.
David:
Clinton directed people to her own website to verify her facts. That seems like the same idea.
Doug:
By the way, Trump's campaign has begun to suggest that he may not participate in any more debates. If he doesn't, Clinton should still debate, alone. That will be 90 minutes to further explore whatever candidates participate.
David:
That appears to be a myth. He's said he'll be at all of the debates.
It will probably be a week before we really start seeing some poll numbers to see if the debate moved anyone. It sure had fireworks, and that should bring people back for round two.
Doug:
It will take a week or so to do a proper survey (e.g., get an random sample, adjust, collect).
I did some analysis of the words and language the two candidates did during the debate:
https://athena.brynmawr.edu/jupyter/hub/dblank/public//Experiments/Debate1/Debate01.ipynb
I didn't have time to do more, but enough to get an overview:
Number of times spoke:
Trump: 126
Clinton: 93
Number of words spoken:
Trump: 8,139
Clinton: 6,237
Number of unique words spoken:
Trump: 1,269
Clinton: 1,379
Notice that Trump spoke more often, with more words, but using a more limited vocabulary.
David:
Not sure there's anything of value in those numbers. Trump should have just kept saying, "Jobs, jobs, jobs, and economy, economy, economy." He did mention growth numerous times, because growth is the key, and strong growth is what's been lacking in America for the past 12 years. There are many things, and words, that sometimes need repeating.
Doug:
Those values are just the facts. Trump did repeat some words many times. Trump said "wrong" 12 times; clinton said "wrong" zero times. Trump also said "mean" 6 times; Clinton said "mean" zero times. Interesting, when Trump was describing Clinton's ads as "mean", many of those ads were composed of nothing more than Trump's own words.
I created "word clouds" based on those words used by each candidate:
You can see the link above for more words used frequently by the candidates.
David:
In addition to watching the next polls, it will be interesting to see how the candidate's tactics change before the next debate. Remember, Obama got shellacked by Romney in their first debate, but came back strong and, with Candy Crowley's assistance, won the next two.
Doug:
Prediction: Trump will not change much, if anything, in future debates. I think he really did study for this one. He just isn't a debater. In fact, (if he shows up at the debate) he might decide that he studied too much, and that was his problem. Maybe, he is thinking, he should have gone with his instincts and brought up Bill Clinton's sex life. That's what I expect. I know Obama, and Trump is no Obama.
David:
Overall, I'd give this one narrowly to Clinton. Trump needs to stop being so defensive, and go on the attack like he did in the first segment. Clinton has a hundred weaknesses that could be exploited. If someone only watched the first 15 or 20 minutes of the debate, they would have said Trump nailed it. But he didn't sustain that aggressiveness. Maybe he thought he was going to get criticized for being aggressive with the fragile Hillary.
I'd advise him to get a little practice next time. Debating is hard work.
That was a bit of fun, blogging in real-time during the debate. We'll have to repeat during the next one, if the polling still looks close.
Doug:
That was a real marathon. I was exhausted after the live-debate. A real mental exercise: writing, reading, and listening. Why only live-debate if it is close? Isn't as interesting regardless?
David:
If nothing is riding on the debates, who cares? Although plenty of people may still watch, hoping for a train wreck.
Listening to some post-debate pundits discussing the results, it looks like we were pretty spot on. Trump appeared strong in the first 30 minutes, but missed a lot of opportunities. Clinton stayed slow and steady during the last portion, and looked presidential during that portion.
Doug:
That is nice of you to say that. Many Republicans would never be able to admit that she "looked presidential".
David:
He will likely do a little bit of prep work before the next debate. He missed a lot of low-hanging fruit, and clearly feels a strong urge to defend himself whenever he feels attacked. He needs to learn to pivot to the issues when you get a biased question, or if you get a question that hits on your weaknesses. Bill Clinton was a master at that tactic. Every question ended up with a discussion about the economy.
But I'm not sure that anyone was moved. Media pundits believe Clinton won, and online polling indicates Trump won.
Doug:
Well, online polling is just a gang of people getting other people to vote. That is in no way an unbiased sample. In fact, it is self-selected, the worse kind of biased sample. So, I wouldn't even look at online poll results. Media pundits probably all prefer the status quo. Besides, the entire venture of determining a "winner" is missing the point. We all win for being able to hear the candidates think on their feet.
David:
Online polling, then, does show which candidate has enthusiasm on their side. People who will get other people to vote for their candidate in a poll have to be motivated. Even the MSNBC and TIME online polls were 70-30 for Trump. Trump supporters would have had to go to liberal websites just to alter results. That effort takes some enthusiasm to support your candidate.
Doug:
Sure, I'd be glad to concede that online polls measure enthusiasm (or orchestrated activism) for a candidate. But that has no bearing on who actually "won" the debate. Nor does it have any indication on the probable outcome of the election. That could explain why Romney was very certain that he had won the last one.
David:
I do think that Lester Holt displayed too much favoritism. He hammered Trump with repeated follow-up questions, but didn't for Hillary. His question to Trump about his tax returns was longer than Hillary's answer about her emails, an issue that continues to drip, drip, drip as we're writing. And she had no follow up questions.
Doug:
It must be hard to be fair between two people who are so uneven. False equivalency might lead you to think that Trump's tax issue is on the same level as Clinton's email server. Lester seemed to do a very good job. I can't think of anything that he could have improved upon. Well, maybe stop Trump from interrupting Clinton so much. That was very disruptive.
David:
He asked Trump six (6) follow up questions during the debate, and asked Clinton zero (0). That's unfair. It's not his job to decide which unanswered questions about the candidates is more important. If he did, he certainly would not have spent so much time on the birther issue. But apparently that issue is more important than Cheryl Mills getting immunity for her laptop during the FBI investigation. If there was no criminality involved in the e-mail/server case, how did so many people either get immunity, or plead the 5th Amendment? But there was only one question about emails, and no follow up to the entire email story. Of course, Trump should have pivoted and brought up those issues himself, as well. His loss.
Doug:
The moderator does get to decide all of those things. That is exactly what the moderator does. Because you have a strong sense of false equivalency does not mean that others need to adopt it. Trump is in left field, and Holt correctly treated him that way. If you claim for most of the previous president's term that he is not even a citizen of this country, prepare to defend yourself, big league!
I thought the debate was useful for getting to know the character of the two candidates away from their orchestrated events. One of the most surprising to me was Trump's reaction to the recession. Clinton pointed out that Trump was making money while millions of people were losing their homes. Trump replied: "that's called business." When he claimed that he was "smart" for not paying any taxes, he doesn't seem to understand that creates a burden on the middle class taxpayers to make up the difference. I came away thinking that this man has no empathy for anyone else. That may be the biggest realization for some in these debates.
David:
If the rules allow rich people to avoid taxes, then the rules need to change. That's the message that Trump failed to capitalize on. There are rules for rich people, orchestrated by corrupt politicians that get big donations from those same rich people (like Hillary), and then there are rules for everyone else. He's avoided taxes by using this system. He's promised to fix this system of loopholes. And, he is smart to use the system when he can. You and I both take advantage of every means to pay less taxes.
Doug:
Another useful discussion was when he was attempting to make the point that you should "just call Hannity" to see what Trump's position was prior to the war. Trump was a private citizen at that time (and of course still in the media). You can't have it both ways: you can't be a private citizen, and also claim that you had a well-known position at that time, verifiable by calling calling your friend.
David:
Clinton directed people to her own website to verify her facts. That seems like the same idea.
Doug:
By the way, Trump's campaign has begun to suggest that he may not participate in any more debates. If he doesn't, Clinton should still debate, alone. That will be 90 minutes to further explore whatever candidates participate.
David:
That appears to be a myth. He's said he'll be at all of the debates.
It will probably be a week before we really start seeing some poll numbers to see if the debate moved anyone. It sure had fireworks, and that should bring people back for round two.
Doug:
It will take a week or so to do a proper survey (e.g., get an random sample, adjust, collect).
I did some analysis of the words and language the two candidates did during the debate:
https://athena.brynmawr.edu/jupyter/hub/dblank/public//Experiments/Debate1/Debate01.ipynb
I didn't have time to do more, but enough to get an overview:
Number of times spoke:
Trump: 126
Clinton: 93
Number of words spoken:
Trump: 8,139
Clinton: 6,237
Number of unique words spoken:
Trump: 1,269
Clinton: 1,379
Notice that Trump spoke more often, with more words, but using a more limited vocabulary.
David:
Not sure there's anything of value in those numbers. Trump should have just kept saying, "Jobs, jobs, jobs, and economy, economy, economy." He did mention growth numerous times, because growth is the key, and strong growth is what's been lacking in America for the past 12 years. There are many things, and words, that sometimes need repeating.
Doug:
Those values are just the facts. Trump did repeat some words many times. Trump said "wrong" 12 times; clinton said "wrong" zero times. Trump also said "mean" 6 times; Clinton said "mean" zero times. Interesting, when Trump was describing Clinton's ads as "mean", many of those ads were composed of nothing more than Trump's own words.
I created "word clouds" based on those words used by each candidate:
 |
| Clinton's most used words. |
 |
| Trump's most used words. |
David:
In addition to watching the next polls, it will be interesting to see how the candidate's tactics change before the next debate. Remember, Obama got shellacked by Romney in their first debate, but came back strong and, with Candy Crowley's assistance, won the next two.
Doug:
Prediction: Trump will not change much, if anything, in future debates. I think he really did study for this one. He just isn't a debater. In fact, (if he shows up at the debate) he might decide that he studied too much, and that was his problem. Maybe, he is thinking, he should have gone with his instincts and brought up Bill Clinton's sex life. That's what I expect. I know Obama, and Trump is no Obama.
David:
Overall, I'd give this one narrowly to Clinton. Trump needs to stop being so defensive, and go on the attack like he did in the first segment. Clinton has a hundred weaknesses that could be exploited. If someone only watched the first 15 or 20 minutes of the debate, they would have said Trump nailed it. But he didn't sustain that aggressiveness. Maybe he thought he was going to get criticized for being aggressive with the fragile Hillary.
I'd advise him to get a little practice next time. Debating is hard work.
