In the final debate of the 2016 Presidential Election, Donald Trump was the clear winner.
Trump was (mostly) composed, factual, and restrained himself from slinging the usual amount of mud at the ever-mud-worthy target of Hillary Clinton. Clinton was visibly rattled numerous times throughout the debate. Zero Hedge has a very thorough post-mortem of the debate.
Less biased moderation by Chris Wallace
This debate was moderated with far less bias than the previous two. Chris Wallace did a bang-up job. He put the pressure on Clinton and Trump both, asking them uncomfortable questions and redirecting them back to the topic at hand when the candidates tried to pivot the conversation for their own benefits. He even scored a few points that Trump should have pushed during earlier points in the conversation. The point I’m referring to in particular was Clinton’s horrible idea of a no-fly zone over Syria that will almost definitely propel us right into war with Russia. My friends and I were yelling at the television like rabid fans at a football game each time Trump missed the opportunity to bring that up.
Clinton tried to be warm and failed miserably.
The generally robotic Clinton worked hard to pull at the heartstrings, saying that her gun-control laws would save the “dozens of toddlers” who are killed by guns, mourning hungry child immigrants, and practically weeping on the stage about the “boy from Aleppo.” Of course, what she didn’t mention was that her foreign policies have been responsible for many such boys, but you know, we only had 90 minutes. Watching Clinton try to emote was a lot like watching a crouching mountain lion try to maintain a friendly expression.
Oh, also, she brought up our military goals for Mosul and explained the US nuclear response time to the entire world – two things Trump pounced on as examples of HRC’s propensity for playing fast and loose with national secrets.
Debate winners are in the eye of the beholder.
Of course, winners of debates of this nature are matters of opinion and generally colored by our pre-conceived notions of whose policies we most align ourselves with. And maybe, just maybe, “winners” are skewed by the mainstream media, who has a clear bias for Clinton.
The friends that I watched the debate with and I are not fans of either Trump or Clinton, but we agreed unanimously that Trump performed far better, was more factual, and got less rattled by difficult questions.
The news networks all disagreed with us, though. And by disagreed, I mean that I wonder if we were even watching the same debate.
When I was on Twitter, the liberals were waxing poetic about the wonders of Hillary Clinton, and I really couldn’t believe my eyes.
— nealcarter (@nealcarter) October 20, 2016
— #ImWithHer (@nautilus1304) October 20, 2016
— Lucy’s HRC World (@LucysHRC) October 20, 2016