Editorial: Presidential debate was not a win for voters
Over and over, after nearly every political debate, observers are consumed with the wrong question. The outcome of a political tête-à-tête, as the Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton show amply demonstrates, should not be a determination of which candidate "won." It should be a determination of whether the voters won.
In that context, Monday's confrontation between the major-party presidential contenders certainly produced no victory.
Trump supporters who have not been dissuaded by months of his brash promises and proud prevarications could not have been offended by his performance in the debate, and Republican-leaning voters troubled by Trump's blustery indiscretion saw little to give them comfort. Similarly, Clinton supporters unmoved by the questions of scandal, opportunism and judgment that dog her candidacy could only be pleased that she maintained such a dignified bearing, while Democrat-leaning voters distressed by those very questions heard little to dispel their doubts.
On some political level, perhaps, a case can be made that one or the other of the two "won" the night, but unfortunately, the voters definitely did not. For, while the candidates managed to provide a little nuance and perhaps some detail regarding issues that by now, the public - even that part which avoided politics until after the conventions - has grown intimately familiar with.
Hillary's emails. Donald's callow comments about women. Clinton's stamina. Trump's income taxes. Both candidates' support or lack of it for an Iraq War that ended nearly five years ago. These are important issues, to be sure, but in terms of helping anyone better know the qualifications of either individual, the debates offered little more than an entertaining flurry of fodder for the fact checkers.
Not that substantive matters didn't surface. Trump raised important questions on the value of NAFTA and the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership. Their exchanges over "law and order" and gun violence bordered on being substantive. Climate change and energy policy made their way into the conversation. But unfortunately, we heard much more about what the candidates claim they did or didn't say about those topics than about the pros or cons of the issues or how the candidates would work with Congress to deal with them.
Two debates remain, the next on Oct. 9. As we reflect on - or recoil from, as the case may be - the flash of this first spectacle, let's hope the coming encounters help us learn less about who is the better performer and more about how either candidate will specifically address the important issues facing the country.