I’ve burned out my thesaurus this election cycle, endlessly searching for synonyms to words like “incredible” and “horrifying." At this point, I’m pretty sure I’m out of words.
With that said, it’s been an incredible three weeks since I wrote my review of the first presidential debate.
Second Debate
The second debate, the town hall held at Washington University in St. Louis, was the one I was initially most excited to see. I really like the dynamic of a candidate having to face questions from real people face-to-face, it’s an element that’s both broken and made campaigns.
And while it’s true that Donald Trump’s campaign seems to be the political Ra’s al Ghul, incapable of every truly dying for good, I do think the second debate was another nail in his oval coffin.
For starters, I couldn’t stop focusing on Trump lurching around the stage as if he lost his keys. It was incredibly distracting and a little off-putting, as if he didn’t know it was live television.
As has happened so often in this election cycle, controversy preceded the debate when recordings of Trump making disgusting remarks on a bus 11 years ago surfaced and most of the country’s attention was focused on that. In that sense, Trump spent most of the night on the defensive, even arguing with the moderators.
Hillary Clinton won every aspect of the debate on policy, however a town hall format is not her strong suit. One of the biggest things that I think plagues Clinton is her inability to connect with an individual, or at the very least, the perception that she’s a rather cold, unwelcoming person.
I think she lacks that warmth, that X-factor that Bill Clinton had in these town hall formats, and unfortunately it affects the strength of her performances.
Hillary, however, showed herself again to be the more prepared one for the debate, essentially playing it by the book. As I said earlier though, the debate and coverage of it was light on real policy discussion. For that, we had to wait for last night’s debate.
Third debate
The third debate, held last night at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas and hosted by Chris Wallace of Fox News, was a solid policy debate.
Overall, Wallace did a phenomenal job of moderating this debate, which was easily the most on-point and focused one of the three. There were times were Wallace seemed like a mother about to throw something at her disobedient child, but he pressed the candidates well and got a good debate out of it.
There was honest discussion about differences in tax policy, talks of charities and fraud; it was all there. This was the debate I had been waiting for.
Although Trump seemed to start becoming unglued around 30 minutes or so into the debate, it was still, at times, a pointed discussion on where these two starkly different candidates would take the country.
Unfortunately, no good thing lasts forever.
About an hour into the debate, Wallace began asking Trump about his claims of a rigged election and asked Trump if he would accept the results of the election.
Now, that’s the easiest question a candidate could ever ask for in a debate. The only real answer should be something like, “Well, of course I would, as this is a democracy that has survived a quarter of a millennium with 44 peaceful transitions of power, and I could never imagine doing or saying anything to disrupt that remarkable span of democratic beauty.”
Trump, though, does not do easy.
Trump may not accept election results.
Trump, the Republican candidate for the most powerful position in the world, told Wallace he would keep us in “suspense," meaning he may not accept the election results as legitimate.
Of course, in practicality, a Trump concession (or lack thereof) doesn’t mean anything to the actual election. Should he lose, and at this point I’d almost bet my life on him losing, and refuse to concede, nothing happens.
The electoral college elects Hillary Clinton as 45th President of the United States, and she is sworn in on January 20, 2017 while Trump tweets about rigged elections at 3 a.m.
However, the impact this could have on the very fabric of our democracy is very real and cannot be understated.
A concession from the losing candidate is an act of goodwill. It’s a symbolic act of unity, that after a year and a half of campaigning, mud-slinging, name calling and integrity questioning, the country can move on under a new president. There's a photo of a note, written by outgoing President Bush to incoming President Clinton that's made rounds on the internet that I think is appropriate.
George W. H. Bush wrote this note to Bill Clinton 20 years ago when he lost the election.
The losing side licks their wounds, recovers and takes another crack at the next election cycle.
It’s a core pillar of what we stand for as a country. We have the right to choose our own leader and that right sometimes comes with the bittersweet reality of seeing your candidate lose. Bitter, because now you’ll have to spend four years with “some schmuck you didn’t vote for” in the White House, but sweet because the system works.
Trump is getting hammered by the media and voters alike for his comment.
"Strategically, it will suppress his turnout from his supports. Fundamentally, it runs counter to the core values of our country," said Brandon Gibson, the 40-year-old independent voter who spoke with me about Gary Johnson.
Nic Cogdall, a NAU graduate and federal employee, thinks it "stands in opposition to our democratic principles."
There are millions of people around the world who long for a system that works as well as our democratic system, especially in places like Africa where multiple countries have suffered under rulers who have refused to give up their power.
It’s just such a disgusting disgrace to our national identity, to have a candidate that has openly called for election monitoring and made unsubstantiated claims of a system rigged against him all because he can’t accept the fact that not enough people like him.
In any case, while last night’s debate was more rich with policy than the previous two, Trump still distracted me with his outlandish and dangerous commentary. The debates were a clean sweep for Clinton; I believe she won all three of them with this last one being her best.
The debates are done, which means we’re one step closer to the light at the end of this ugly tunnel.
Hopefully, we’re not met with a sea of torches and pitchforks and get to enjoy yet another peaceful transition of presidential power.
Reach the columnist at cjwood3@asu.edu or follow @chriswood_311 on Twitter.
Editor’s note: The opinions presented in this column are the author’s and do not imply any endorsement from The State Press or its editors.
Want to join the conversation? Send an email to opiniondesk.statepress@gmail.com. Keep letters under 300 words and be sure to include your university affiliation. Anonymity will not be granted.
Like The State Press on Facebook and follow @statepress on Twitter.
