The debate and a view from across the pond.
In spite of their evident distaste for debate watching after the primaries, 17 volunteer debate watchers turned up to watch the first presidential debate. One also brought two English guests.
Most watchers felt that the early rounds went to Trump, while about half said they thought Clinton scored on him in the last half.
Interestingly, the two visitors from across the pond were very interested in and informed on the candidates. More on their reactions later.
Almost to a person, the group felt that once again, the debate moderator was going for ratings over substantive issues.
When Mr. Holt broached the birther question, comments ranged from exasperated to profane.
Most watchers had words for Mrs. Clinton as well. Words like plastic, smug, over-rehearsed, condescending, brittle, hateful, disagreeable and a few more that we’ll just leave out here.
Even so, most felt she scored on Trump, obviously getting under his skin several times.
It’s not likely that any “undecided” voters got a lot out of all this stagecraft, but what about the people with no skin at all in this game?
The English guests said that the debate was probably going to be televised at home, but they got a lot out of seeing how we reacted to it.
During the after party they seemed particularly interested in the active use of Twitter and Facebook, wondering how we could listen and be online so much and still apparently get all the information. Having opted to leave their phones outside in the interest of good manners, they often looked at the comments over someone’s shoulder.
Ah, the watchers become the watched. A novel feeling, to say the least.
Incidentally, it wasn’t easy to get these very nice folks to open up. They felt that as guests, they should just be polite. Only after repeated assurances that everyone truly wanted to hear what they really thought did they finally warm up to the idea.
Asked to elaborate they said that they thought that we tend to treat our politicians as though they were “entertainers on the telly” and vote for them accordingly.
They were quite impressed and not a little surprised that this group at least seemed to grasp the underlying issues.
The one thing that they are wholeheartedly in agreement with Mr. Trump on is his analysis of the threat of unrestrained immigration and of pandering to immigrants.
They both commented that this process, or rather the tone of it, was very different than it was at home. One of the things that astonished them was the tabloid feel of the debate.
Their personal opinion was that the moderator “seemed quite the cheeky sort,” and that his questions showed an active attempt to cast Mr. Trump in a bad light.
OK, but what if you had to vote, based on what you just saw and heard?
Trump at the Houses of Parliament. Now that’s a picture worth a few thousand words.