The Final Presidential Debate 2016
Quick takes
Here’s what Times editorial writers and columnists made of this final presidential debate as Donald Trump declined to promise that he would accept the election results and Hillary Clinton had a rare moment of authenticity – proclaiming her feminism in defending Roe vs. Wade and a woman’s right to choose.
Trump makeover falls short
Donald Trump changed his personal approach Wednesday night, keeping his temper and outbursts under more control compared to the second presidential debate. He also changed several of his campaign narratives.
For example, Trump has previously praised Russian President Vladimir Putin as a “better leader” than President Barack Obama and admired his thuggish approach. Putin has said nice things about Trump, and a top Russian official has suggested there could be war if Trump does not become president. Yet Wednesday night, Trump said he doesn’t know Putin and that he would be a stronger match for him than Hillary Clinton. But he had to be prodded to condemn the interference of Russia in the presidential election. He would not acknowledge the conclusion by U.S. intelligence agencies that Russian hackers are likely responsible for providing emails from the Clinton campaign and other Democrats to Wikileaks.
On trade, Trump actually claimed he is for free trade. Yet he has repeatedly called for high trade tariffs in a wrong-headed attempt to protect the American economy. That is the opposite of free trade, and it would be particularly bad for Florida.
Trump also would not acknowledge the countless times he has alleged the election could be rigged and merely said he would “look at it” after the election. Then he claimed the election is rigged because Clinton has been “allowed” to run – and refused to say whether he will accept the election results if he loses. Clinton correctly called Trump’s baseless claims of a rigged election as “horrifying”.
Trump was consistent in one respect. He continued to insist he was against the war in Iraq even though the record is clear he was for it. This debate was a final attempt for Trump to remake himself into a responsible alternative, but he cannot remake his entire campaign.
Tim Nickens is editor of editorials.
A normal debate – for a while
Well, for 21 minutes, it almost seemed like a normal presidential debate. Then came the first crack in the quasi-dignified beginning. On immigration, Donald Trump pointedly said there are some “bad hombres” that he’s going to deport. And then Hillary Clinton tried some awkward jujutsu, trying to turn an out-of-context Wikileaked reference she made about “open borders” into a discussion about Vladimir Putin and his apparent interference in the presidential election.
Thanks to split screen, we could see her eyes shoot darts at him and we could see his headshakes of theatrical disbelief. He used that great word “bigly” at 9:27 and then used it again within a minute.
A minute later, both started talking, and then talking MORE LOUDLY, over each other. Halfway through the debate, it showed once again how much these two candidates really, really don’t like each other. Trump even said Clinton shouldn’t have been allowed to run for president. She called him dangerous. He called her a criminal.
Moderator Chris Wallace tried to take back control and more or less succeeded — for a while. You knew it was coming and at 9:34, it did: Trump for the first time loudly said “wrong” into his mic to take issue with a Clinton assertion.
Trump’s awkward pivot came at 9:57 when he claimed all of the allegations against him for unwanted sexual advances were fiction and lies and then switched to Clinton’s missing emails. He followed that up a few minutes later by calling the Clinton Foundation a “criminal enterprise.” The reality? Conflicted? You bet. Criminal? That’s a stretch. That was Trump for the night, never quite going off the rails but not staying on track, either.
Although Wallace kept grabbing back the metaphorical microphone and trying to keep control of the room, in the end, there was a lot of heat, not much light. Nobody’s mind was changed. And that includes those hardy souls who suffered through to the end of this — mercifully — final debate. The end is near. Less than three more weeks…
Jim Verhulst is a member of the editorial board and the editor of Perspective.
The bickering couple
There were moments Wednesday night when the confrontation between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton felt more like a the bickering couple before the final split becomes official. Who gets the house on Pennsylvania Avenue? What about the Camp David retreat? And that plane! Who gets custody of Rudy Giuliani?
Can we talk? By this time over the course of a long contentious campaign it was inevitable this last debate would descend into a bickering back and forth over each candidate’s moral fitness for office. Liar, liar, pants suit on fire! And there was Trump insisting allegations of groping women had been “largely debunked.” Not exactly an Honest Abe moment for you.
How appropriate after the Sturm und Drang of three nasty presidential debates the final (thank goodness) engagement took place in Las Vegas, the setting for “The Hangover.”
Daniel Ruth is a member of the Times editorial board and a columnist.
Trampling abortion rights
Donald Trump’s declaration that he’s “not okay with” women having late-term abortions inadvertently but perfectly framed his extreme position. Women should not have to be told by a man, the president or anyone else that they need his approval to make their own health care choices.
And Trump vowed to ban more than just late-term abortions. He said Roe vs. Wade, the landmark decision preserving a woman’s right to choose, would “automatically” be overturned by a Supreme Court with justices he nominates. The Roe ruling does not prevent reasonable regulations on rare, late-term procedures. But that’s not enough for Trump.
If the task of regulating abortions is left to state governments, as Trump also predicted, that’s no comfort. Florida’s Republican-led Legislature passed bills the last two years redefining the first trimester of pregnancy, violating the privacy of women’s medical records, imposing a 24-hour waiting period and requiring two visits before having an abortion. The courts are the only recourse to stop such onerous restrictions.
Abortion, as usual, is a divisive issue this election. The candidates’ positions could not be clearer. Trump wants to abolish the established constitutional right to seek a safe, legal abortion. Hillary Clinton promises to let women choose for themselves.
Molly Moorhead is a member of the Times editorial board.
Differences are crystal clear
This one felt less like the latest episode of America’s presidential campaign reality show. Insults, interruptions, sure. But voters got actual answers on critical issues like their utterly opposing views on the future of a Supreme Court that will shape the country next.
In that white I’m-The-Good-Guy pantsuit, Hillary Clinton sounded less rehearsed and more genuine, particularly on the importance of holding the line to protect hard-fought abortion rights. A better prepared Trump managed to reign in at least some of his bombastic tendencies for awhile there, but he sure didn’t score any points with women voters.
Memorable Clinton line: “Donald thinks belittling women makes him bigger.” Trump’s, on whether he’ll accept the election results: “I will keep you in suspense.”
This one’s more about fact-checking what they said than their style points, or lack thereof. But seriously, was anyone really expecting a handshake?
Sue Carlton is a Times columnist.
Their best debate performances
Hillary Clinton delivered her strongest performance of the three presidential debates — and she needed to because Donald Trump also turned in his best effort. She rose above Trump’s thoughtful and tempered start not so much with dialogue but with delivery, a delivery that came across as far more self-assured and confident than previous face offs with Trump. Clinton’s biggest hurdle with voters remains trust, but she took steps toward gaining greater respect from Americans with a genuine showing. Even her prepared remarks seemed to come more from the heart and less than the head. She brought more sincerity to her responses instead of sounding like someone trying to give the right answers to a test.
Did she duck some questions? Yes, she’s far from flawless. But I can’t recall a moment in which she came across as more presidential than she did Wednesday night.
Ernest Hooper is a Times columnist.
Trump’s empty calories
Watching the Wednesday night’s debate called to mind another final event, only one day before - President Barack Obama’s final state dinner at the White House. It was a reminder of the global reach of the presidency, and of Donald Trump’s complete unpreparedness for office.
Trump and Hillary Clinton differ on many substantive issues. But to many voters, this election is not a policy choice. Despite a long campaign, where he exhausted the Republican field, and even after three debates, Trump still has not matured as a candidate, certainly not as a global leader. Again he reduced major issues, especially on foreign policy, to empty calories. Trade, the siege of Aleppo? (“A disaster.”) Iraq? (“Mosul’s so sad.”) Immigration? (“We have some bad hombres here, and we’re gonna get them out.”) Trump called the Clinton Foundation and its global charity work “a criminal enterprise.” He blamed Clinton for creating ISIS, and questioned the finding by the U.S. intelligence community that Russia is likely behind the hacking of American computers. Trump pontificated on the situation in Haiti because, after all, he stopped by Little Haiti in Miami a day or two before.
Trump holds forth like a second-semester junior winging it through orals. There are plenty of differences between Trump and Clinton in policy, character and experience. And there are major distractions the two parties want to exploit, from Trump’s assaults on women to Clinton’s leaked emails. But Trump’s incapacity to grow as a presidential figure was again on full display. He blew a last chance to look presidential before a national audience. He refused to disavow Russia’s autocratic leader, Vladimir Putin, who is both America’s biggest nemesis and Trump’s biggest foreign supporter. He refused to accept the outcome of the election. By making this election about himself instead of any vision or direction for the country, Trump has failed to challenge Clinton or the status quo. He has given voters fear and insecurity instead of a legitimate choice. Something’s going on, all right. It was captured on TV Wednesday night, and it’s being captured in the polls.
John Hill is a member of the Times editorial board.
Trump’s missed opportunity
On the night of Jan. 20, 2017, when the rest of the nation is talking about the swearing-in of the first female president of the United States, a man will sit alone in front of a television in his New York penthouse. In the darkened room, Donald Trump will replay the third presidential debate over and over again. And, if fate has a sense of humor, he will curse the hubris that kept him from the White House.
Trump could have been president. It was there for the taking. And there was a 10-minute segment in the middle of Wednesday night’s final debate that might seriously haunt him if he had any self-awareness.
The subject was the economy, and Trump was mostly succinct. He was, briefly, on point.
“The one thing you have over me is experience,” he said to Hillary Clinton, “but it’s bad experience.”
It was a good line, but it was just a prelude to the gut punch:
“The problem is you talk, but you don’t get anything done, Hillary.”
That should have been it. That should have been Trump’s entire campaign.
This was the election cycle when Americans were begging for change. When an obscure senator from Vermont, who didn’t mind being called a socialist, nearly rode a wave of momentum to the top of the Democratic ticket. And when Trump, who bragged about not paying taxes and using bankruptcy as an effective economic tool, bested a crowned Republican primary field.
It wouldn’t have mattered if Trump’s economic plan was a mirage. (It was.) And it wouldn’t have mattered if his business acumen was overblown. (It was.)
America was ready for change, and ready to elect Trump.
But the man could not shut up.
He was too arrogant. Too narcissistic. Too thin-skinned. He so desperately needed an excuse for his impending loss that he blew whatever chance he had of a comeback by refusing to pledge that he would gracefully accept defeat.
And so, if he watches the replay of this debate with a TV remote in his hand, I wonder if Trump will understand he is holding the one weapon that could have made him the world’s most powerful man:
A mute button.
John Romano is a Times columnist.
More from the Times opinion staff
At a glance: Times general election recommendations
The Tampa Bay Times Editorial Board gives their recommendations for the Nov. 8 general election.
Times recommends: Hillary Clinton for president
These are anxious times. But there is a clear way forward to build upon the gains of these last eight years.