Clinton and Trump’s First Debate ‘Battle’: Who Won?
Published in Sina
(China) on 28 September 2016
by (link to original)
The first televised presidential debate of the 2016 U.S. general election between the candidates of the two major parties was held on the evening of Sept. 26, and was the first face-to-face match-up between candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. After more than an hour of verbal battle, who emerged victorious? And how will this debate influence the votes of the United States electorate? The Sina World Weekly online community discussed these questions intensely.
Side One: Clinton Came Out Ahead
Chu Zhaogen (researcher for Sina World Weekly and the Zhejiang University Center for Non-Traditional Security and Peaceful Development Studies):
Trump was unprepared, putting too much confidence in his speaking ability, to face Clinton’s fierce offense! Trump’s familiarity with statistics was clearly superior to Clinton’s, but he lacked conciseness and strong counterattacks, both essential for good debating!
However, you can’t view this election too much with the conventional perspective of the U.S. elite. So, toward the end, Clinton had control of the situation and showed a high level of confidence; that may please American elites, but you can’t forget that this election is colored by a seriously anti-elite and anti-establishment mood, and it’s possible that ordinary Americans look on Clinton with disdain.
Tan Daoming (researcher for Sina World Weekly and the Institute of Latin American Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences):
Clinton held steady amid a typhoon. Her performance was clearly superior to Trump’s.
"Spring" (media representative):
Clinton controlled the debate; Trump seemed less and less “presidential” as the debate went on. I thought that Trump initially gave a solid performance, but Clinton’s performance was slightly better.
Chu Yin (researcher for Sina World Weekly and associate professor at the University of International Relations):
After adapting to Trump’s boorish style, Clinton delivered incisive attacks regarding Trump’s tax returns, business acumen and character, and gave a solid performance on the topics of taxation and her political track record. I thought Trump was more inclined to argue, whereas Clinton was better at discussing matters. I personally think that Clinton came out slightly ahead.
Zhang Song (U.S. correspondent for Wen Wei Po):
U.S. election experts thought that Clinton won the first debate. She prepared better, had more confidence and argued using evidence. Trump is thought to have prepared insufficiently, spoken too fast, been too anxious and interrupted too frequently.
Yan Shaohua (doctoral candidate at the University of Hong Kong):
I feel like there was nothing particularly different about this debate; the differences between the candidates are still glaring. It’s not a matter of preparation but a matter of the difference between an amateur and a professional. Looking solely at professionalism, Trump’s performance was that of a cocky amateur bragging in front of the known master. On many topics, he evaded substance in favor of easy talking points and dragged down the depth and level of debate. Of course, the result of the debate is something else altogether, not decided solely by professionalism. If the election is just a political show, then Trump is already a star. But for matters of actual governance, professionalism is still more worthy of trust and our expectations.
Chen Yong (doctoral graduate from the School of International Studies, Peking University):
Clinton is an old figure in political circles, so of course she comes out ahead in a debate. I suppose we’ll see if people buy it.
Hu Ruoyu (doctoral candidate at Tsinghua University):
One is an old politician familiar with all the tricks of the trade; the other is an overbearing reckless neophyte. Overall, Clinton appeared to be more poised, mature and cool-headed, and she conveyed a good image. Trump did not latch onto Clinton’s three weak areas involving “emailgate,” the question of corruption at the Clinton Foundation or the Benghazi incident as a way to follow through by attacking her strongly. When describing policy positions, he was not as clear or as well organized as Clinton, and it seemed as though he hadn’t completely adapted to the setting of a presidential debate. Still, he did not commit any grave errors and exploited his unique characteristics.
Side 2: Trump Performed Better
Zhang Zhixin (researcher for Sina World Weekly and associate researcher at the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations):
Trump performed solidly, better than expected.
He had some high points, such as his opinion that the failure of the Democratic trade policy, beginning with Clinton’s husband’s signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement, had led to the current state of the American economy, and that the chaos of the Middle East and North Africa arose out of the misjudgments and mistaken policies of President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton.
He also effectively linked the release of his tax returns with Clinton’s email scandal, claiming that her action of using a private email server for official business as secretary of state was not just a mistake but a disgrace. Strategically, he intentionally tried to show Clinton his good side and demonstrate the bearing of a gentleman. He purposely kept his attacks relatively few and played more defense. He also showed a sense of humor several times, such as when he said that Clinton had fought against the Islamic State her whole adult life and blamed her and her husband’s mistaken policy for allowing the Islamic State group to grow stronger.
Chen Dingding (professor at Jinan University):
Trump won. He demonstrated a superior demeanor when he said he would absolutely support Clinton if she won [the election]. Clinton’s entire performance was robotic and spiritless. Of course, her knowledge is more extensive.
Yang Guang (chief news anchor at China Radio International):
If the sound is turned off so only the candidates’ expressions and physical bearing are seen, who did better? I would say Trump; Hillary’s eye-roll and other such small gestures appeared holier-than-thou and out of touch, keeping her from seeming likable. Trump has a strong sense of connection with his audience, much more so than Clinton; perhaps it has to do with his experience doing business and being a media host.
Zeng Sen (student at Wuhan University):
Trump’s performance met expectations. At the start, he had a presidential air, but on important topics, his stance did not change at all. I personally think that the most unexpected part of Trump’s performance was that he said that if Clinton won, he would accept the will of the voters.
I think that Trump’s professing to end his doubt about Obama’s birthplace, and then saying that the Clinton camp started this conspiracy theory, when he has been tangled up with the issue of Obama’s birth certificate all along, was a miscalculation. Just now, the NBC reporter asked Trump if he wanted to apologize to Obama, and Trump said that he was proud to have pressured Obama to release his birth certificate. I feel like this gets into the sort of trickery that journalists use.
Cui Li:
I think that in the end, Trump’s remarks exposed many of the problems with Clinton. For example, Clinton controls the voice of the media to help herself in the election; I think that point could help Trump turn the situation around. Clinton is better at exploiting a debate to defend herself, and perhaps Trump really isn’t well-prepared, but I also think that the media’s portrayal of Trump often follows Clinton’s direction, and that’s frightening.
Zhang Zhixin:
Comparing the two, Trump’s answers to questions were more concise and clear, and more novel. Clinton’s responses largely used the same old trite words, and put people to sleep. As Trump said, “You’ve been talking for 30 years, but what have you accomplished?” You could say Clinton gave up her game toward the end when she harped on Trump’s mistreatment of women, putting herself in a very vulnerable position. But the fact that discrimination against women is, in fact, a historical problem, combined with repeated tarnishing of Trump by the liberal media, Trump's ability to brush off such accusations becomes tougher.
How Valuable Were the Debate Topics?
Zhang Zhixin:
Both sides played on populist sentiment. For example, Trump repeatedly brought up China as a currency manipulator — playing the economy card. Opposing the influence of special interests on policymaking was playing the political card. Criticism of Obama and Clinton rides the current anti-establishment trend.
There was quite good coverage of the economy, trade and taxes. Social questions only touched on race, and no good measures were proposed. On foreign affairs, it was mostly just the same old talk.
Zeng Sen:
China was not a main topic of this debate. Of the two candidates, Trump brought up China more often, using it several times as a scapegoat for the economic difficulties of the U.S.
Zhang Song:
Throughout the debate, China was not brought up particularly often. Mainly, China came up at the start of the debate when Trump drew some attention saying that China had stolen the U.S.’s rice bowl. But, overall, the two candidates did not set China up as a main strategic enemy.
Zhang Zhixin:
It was interesting that consensus existed between the two candidates on a few matters, such as increasing child care benefits, restricting the purchase of guns by people on the no-fly list, and rebuilding confidence between police and citizens.
Does a Debate Victory Translate into an Election Victory?
Zhang Song:
Coming out ahead in this debate does not represent a victory in the election. In many different ways, this current election cannot be understood through past examples. Trump faces opposition from the media and the vast majority of those concerned with national strategy; even George H. W. Bush has endorsed Clinton. And yet, opinion polls remain close; the reasons for this are worth deep and repeated thought.
Yang Guang:
Will ordinary Americans really analyze the content of the debate as we are doing here? Maybe they take their emotional response into consideration more seriously; maybe some phrase, gesture or tone of voice inspires positive or negative reactions.
Zeng Sen:
Actually, a calm and unsurprising debate such as this does not have a great influence on the election. If it does have an influence, it will be on the poll numbers gained or lost from debate performance.
Chen Dingding:
Don’t judge the American people from an elitist perspective; if that worked, then Trump would have been out of the contest early.
Zhang Zhixin:
For Trump, the debate really is very important, and his poll numbers are currently rising; the two candidates continue to be deadlocked nationally and in battleground states.
Wu Chen (media repesentative):
The debate really just deepened the impressions of the candidates that people already had. It’s difficult to say whether the debate earned the candidates any undecided voters.
Side One: Clinton Came Out Ahead
Chu Zhaogen (researcher for Sina World Weekly and the Zhejiang University Center for Non-Traditional Security and Peaceful Development Studies):
Trump was unprepared, putting too much confidence in his speaking ability, to face Clinton’s fierce offense! Trump’s familiarity with statistics was clearly superior to Clinton’s, but he lacked conciseness and strong counterattacks, both essential for good debating!
However, you can’t view this election too much with the conventional perspective of the U.S. elite. So, toward the end, Clinton had control of the situation and showed a high level of confidence; that may please American elites, but you can’t forget that this election is colored by a seriously anti-elite and anti-establishment mood, and it’s possible that ordinary Americans look on Clinton with disdain.
Tan Daoming (researcher for Sina World Weekly and the Institute of Latin American Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences):
Clinton held steady amid a typhoon. Her performance was clearly superior to Trump’s.
"Spring" (media representative):
Clinton controlled the debate; Trump seemed less and less “presidential” as the debate went on. I thought that Trump initially gave a solid performance, but Clinton’s performance was slightly better.
Chu Yin (researcher for Sina World Weekly and associate professor at the University of International Relations):
After adapting to Trump’s boorish style, Clinton delivered incisive attacks regarding Trump’s tax returns, business acumen and character, and gave a solid performance on the topics of taxation and her political track record. I thought Trump was more inclined to argue, whereas Clinton was better at discussing matters. I personally think that Clinton came out slightly ahead.
Zhang Song (U.S. correspondent for Wen Wei Po):
U.S. election experts thought that Clinton won the first debate. She prepared better, had more confidence and argued using evidence. Trump is thought to have prepared insufficiently, spoken too fast, been too anxious and interrupted too frequently.
Yan Shaohua (doctoral candidate at the University of Hong Kong):
I feel like there was nothing particularly different about this debate; the differences between the candidates are still glaring. It’s not a matter of preparation but a matter of the difference between an amateur and a professional. Looking solely at professionalism, Trump’s performance was that of a cocky amateur bragging in front of the known master. On many topics, he evaded substance in favor of easy talking points and dragged down the depth and level of debate. Of course, the result of the debate is something else altogether, not decided solely by professionalism. If the election is just a political show, then Trump is already a star. But for matters of actual governance, professionalism is still more worthy of trust and our expectations.
Chen Yong (doctoral graduate from the School of International Studies, Peking University):
Clinton is an old figure in political circles, so of course she comes out ahead in a debate. I suppose we’ll see if people buy it.
Hu Ruoyu (doctoral candidate at Tsinghua University):
One is an old politician familiar with all the tricks of the trade; the other is an overbearing reckless neophyte. Overall, Clinton appeared to be more poised, mature and cool-headed, and she conveyed a good image. Trump did not latch onto Clinton’s three weak areas involving “emailgate,” the question of corruption at the Clinton Foundation or the Benghazi incident as a way to follow through by attacking her strongly. When describing policy positions, he was not as clear or as well organized as Clinton, and it seemed as though he hadn’t completely adapted to the setting of a presidential debate. Still, he did not commit any grave errors and exploited his unique characteristics.
Side 2: Trump Performed Better
Zhang Zhixin (researcher for Sina World Weekly and associate researcher at the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations):
Trump performed solidly, better than expected.
He had some high points, such as his opinion that the failure of the Democratic trade policy, beginning with Clinton’s husband’s signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement, had led to the current state of the American economy, and that the chaos of the Middle East and North Africa arose out of the misjudgments and mistaken policies of President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton.
He also effectively linked the release of his tax returns with Clinton’s email scandal, claiming that her action of using a private email server for official business as secretary of state was not just a mistake but a disgrace. Strategically, he intentionally tried to show Clinton his good side and demonstrate the bearing of a gentleman. He purposely kept his attacks relatively few and played more defense. He also showed a sense of humor several times, such as when he said that Clinton had fought against the Islamic State her whole adult life and blamed her and her husband’s mistaken policy for allowing the Islamic State group to grow stronger.
Chen Dingding (professor at Jinan University):
Trump won. He demonstrated a superior demeanor when he said he would absolutely support Clinton if she won [the election]. Clinton’s entire performance was robotic and spiritless. Of course, her knowledge is more extensive.
Yang Guang (chief news anchor at China Radio International):
If the sound is turned off so only the candidates’ expressions and physical bearing are seen, who did better? I would say Trump; Hillary’s eye-roll and other such small gestures appeared holier-than-thou and out of touch, keeping her from seeming likable. Trump has a strong sense of connection with his audience, much more so than Clinton; perhaps it has to do with his experience doing business and being a media host.
Zeng Sen (student at Wuhan University):
Trump’s performance met expectations. At the start, he had a presidential air, but on important topics, his stance did not change at all. I personally think that the most unexpected part of Trump’s performance was that he said that if Clinton won, he would accept the will of the voters.
I think that Trump’s professing to end his doubt about Obama’s birthplace, and then saying that the Clinton camp started this conspiracy theory, when he has been tangled up with the issue of Obama’s birth certificate all along, was a miscalculation. Just now, the NBC reporter asked Trump if he wanted to apologize to Obama, and Trump said that he was proud to have pressured Obama to release his birth certificate. I feel like this gets into the sort of trickery that journalists use.
Cui Li:
I think that in the end, Trump’s remarks exposed many of the problems with Clinton. For example, Clinton controls the voice of the media to help herself in the election; I think that point could help Trump turn the situation around. Clinton is better at exploiting a debate to defend herself, and perhaps Trump really isn’t well-prepared, but I also think that the media’s portrayal of Trump often follows Clinton’s direction, and that’s frightening.
Zhang Zhixin:
Comparing the two, Trump’s answers to questions were more concise and clear, and more novel. Clinton’s responses largely used the same old trite words, and put people to sleep. As Trump said, “You’ve been talking for 30 years, but what have you accomplished?” You could say Clinton gave up her game toward the end when she harped on Trump’s mistreatment of women, putting herself in a very vulnerable position. But the fact that discrimination against women is, in fact, a historical problem, combined with repeated tarnishing of Trump by the liberal media, Trump's ability to brush off such accusations becomes tougher.
How Valuable Were the Debate Topics?
Zhang Zhixin:
Both sides played on populist sentiment. For example, Trump repeatedly brought up China as a currency manipulator — playing the economy card. Opposing the influence of special interests on policymaking was playing the political card. Criticism of Obama and Clinton rides the current anti-establishment trend.
There was quite good coverage of the economy, trade and taxes. Social questions only touched on race, and no good measures were proposed. On foreign affairs, it was mostly just the same old talk.
Zeng Sen:
China was not a main topic of this debate. Of the two candidates, Trump brought up China more often, using it several times as a scapegoat for the economic difficulties of the U.S.
Zhang Song:
Throughout the debate, China was not brought up particularly often. Mainly, China came up at the start of the debate when Trump drew some attention saying that China had stolen the U.S.’s rice bowl. But, overall, the two candidates did not set China up as a main strategic enemy.
Zhang Zhixin:
It was interesting that consensus existed between the two candidates on a few matters, such as increasing child care benefits, restricting the purchase of guns by people on the no-fly list, and rebuilding confidence between police and citizens.
Does a Debate Victory Translate into an Election Victory?
Zhang Song:
Coming out ahead in this debate does not represent a victory in the election. In many different ways, this current election cannot be understood through past examples. Trump faces opposition from the media and the vast majority of those concerned with national strategy; even George H. W. Bush has endorsed Clinton. And yet, opinion polls remain close; the reasons for this are worth deep and repeated thought.
Yang Guang:
Will ordinary Americans really analyze the content of the debate as we are doing here? Maybe they take their emotional response into consideration more seriously; maybe some phrase, gesture or tone of voice inspires positive or negative reactions.
Zeng Sen:
Actually, a calm and unsurprising debate such as this does not have a great influence on the election. If it does have an influence, it will be on the poll numbers gained or lost from debate performance.
Chen Dingding:
Don’t judge the American people from an elitist perspective; if that worked, then Trump would have been out of the contest early.
Zhang Zhixin:
For Trump, the debate really is very important, and his poll numbers are currently rising; the two candidates continue to be deadlocked nationally and in battleground states.
Wu Chen (media repesentative):
The debate really just deepened the impressions of the candidates that people already had. It’s difficult to say whether the debate earned the candidates any undecided voters.
Previous article![]( "The Night the Wind Changed")
