On the day after the debate, the most influential U.S. media focused on the rancor and aggressiveness that characterized the second debate between the candidates competing to succeed Obama. The reason lies in the lack of discussion about taxes, health care, terrorism and foreign policy. As for the polls, nothing indicates an inversion of the pro-Hillary trend.
It was a “brutal debate,” according to Politico.com. The website also makes a bitter but unavoidable prediction: “29 more days in the mud.” The New York Times mentions “low blows” when it looks like the lower parts of human anatomy have taken over. The Wall Street Journal, in what is almost an understatement, calls the debate “rancorous.”
A day has passed since the second TV debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, and media analysis is more concerned with style than with substance. Because, after all, style has become substance: Policy matters such as taxes, health care, terrorism or foreign policy were barely discussed and no new ideas were introduced. All anyone will remember from the debate night is aggressiveness reaching its peak and the mutual delegitimization of both candidates.
The early polls declared Hillary the clear winner, but they must be taken with a grain of salt. Experience teaches us that four to seven days are necessary to assess the effects of a TV debate between candidates and for an accurate analysis of a voter sample. Either way, last night’s duel is unlikely to shift many votes, partly because it was overshadowed, both in its media visibility as well as in its emotional impact, by the scandal that was covered by the media over the entire weekend: The 2005 tape in which Trump boasted about grabbing his female prey by their genitalia. However, by then, the polls already showed a clear recovery by Hillary that began immediately after the first debate on Sept. 26. There is no reason to believe that this trend is going to stop now.
As for the Republican establishment, any thought of an anti-Trump revolt is already tapering off. He is the candidate now; you cannot change your horse only 29 days away from the finish line. Paul Ryan, the Republican who holds the highest party office as speaker of the house (the equivalent of the Italian president of the Chamber of Deputies), already knew the score by Saturday. Ryan condemned Trump’s sexist vulgarities harshly and immediately, but he took care not to withdraw his endorsement, nor did he evoke the unrealistic scenario of a change of candidate. The only thing Ryan can and must do is to continue what he is already doing: stop campaigning for Trump and concentrate on the congressional elections.
On Nov. 8, not only will Americans vote for their new president, they will also vote to re-elect the entire House of Representatives (435 representatives) and a third of the Senate (34 out of 100 senators). At the moment, Republicans hold the majority in both houses. According to the most prevalent poll predictions, it is unlikely that the Democrats will gain the majority in the House of Representatives. A slight majority may be instead within their reach in the Senate.
Ryan has to concentrate on his mission to salvage as much as he can. Cutting losses will not be easy if Trump loses by a landslide, not to mention the historical and frequent hypothesis that people may transfer their votes not only to the Democratic candidate for the White House, but to her colleagues in the House of Representatives and Senate as well.
The acrobatic feat that Ryan and many Republican candidates have to master consists in campaigning against Hillary while distancing themselves as much as they can from Trump. The equivalent of a triple somersault with one twist.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.