The analysis we’ve been waiting for: Our American friend, John Gilmore, on last night’s Trump-Hill debate:
It’s one thing to argue amongst one’s countrymen about the relative value of something tens of millions watched at the same time. It’s slightly disconcerting to have to explain it to another country, one that shares a long border, is an important trading partner and which, for the most part, speaks the same language.
So let’s get to it: regardless of who one thought won last night’s first presidential debate, it won’t have much, if any, effect on the outcome of the race. Why hold them in the first place? That’s a good question with few satisfying answers at present.
Many observers thought Trump won the debate. Many observers thought Hillary did. There was plenty of post-debate spin for one’s political preference, you simply had to seek it out.
Trump won every single online poll except CNN’s, which admitted to stacking the deck two to one with democrats. This means something, I suppose, but not all that much. Yet one poll had 400,000 respondents while another had 800,000, both of which Trump won handily. Make of it what you will.
The moderator of the debate was generally seen as having actively assisted Hillary, leading republicans to wonder aloud yet again why they agree to the Media Party playing such a role. I take comfort in the fact that Trump has marginalized media’s power this election cycle like no one before him. That satisfaction is ongoing.
The campaign resumes again today, with Trump having several appearances in several states while Hillary will appear before small crowds, carefully scripted and relentlessly ineffective.
The glaring issue omission last night was immigration. It strongly favors Trump so in one sense there’s no surprise it wasn’t raised. But it still is an animating, important issue in the campaign and people won’t likely forget about it between now and November 8th.
Yesterday saw the release of any number of polls, all favoring Trump. States that “shouldn’t” be in play are, confounding the establishment punditry that has for some time gotten virtually nothing right about this election. Even my own state of Minnesota, which hasn’t voted for a republican for president since 1972, was found to be tied at 43% for each candidate. Other, more important states have Trump tied or actually ahead, leading several pollsters to conclude that if the election was today, he’d win. The reaction on the left was something to behold.
The sanest analysis about last night holds that the trajectory of the race hasn’t changed and I think this is correct. Hillary needed a stellar performance which she didn’t deliver while Trump needed to make fatal, ghastly errors that derailed his momentum. That didn’t happen either. The remaining two debates, plus one vice presidential debate, seem unlikely to yield a different result and with smaller viewing audiences expected.
Seventy percent of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track. It’s difficult to see how, at the end of the day and with turnout models increasingly showing an electorate highly favorable to Trump, that Hillary can win a third Obama term. Her vast sums of money spent trying to take Trump down have proven ineffective in the extreme. Trump, criticized by traditional analysts for not spending much on ads, now is poised to unleash a $140 million dollar blitz in carefully targeted states. That can hardly hurt him and may help.
Michael Moore, the somewhat iconic film director of the Left, complained last night on Twitter that Trump had won outright and the apocalypse continued to approach unabated. Mind you, he said in July that he thought Trump would win and clearly nothing he saw in the debate changed his mind. I’ll take it.
Reality check: Americans need to decide if they want to join the Third World, which Obama’s third term would certainly help them do. Alternatively, they could continue to provide hope for people who think that work and achievement matter more than grievance and entitlement.
The big problem, as many Canadians see it, is that Trump—should he win—is likely a one-term wonder who does not eviscerate the bureaucracy that enables Third World politics north of the Rio Grande. If he does not slash the federal civil service to one quarter strength and persuade most states to do the same, it is still over. And that is only a start.
The civil service and other government union workers (who should also be slashed to one-quarter strength), in both the United States and Canada, have nothing to lose by delivering election after election to their identity, grievance, and entitlement clients.
Added: I doubt the debate makes any difference. In early November, the US, the big catalyst for a free world will decide if it wishes to continue to be so or to descend into the stink and scum of identity, grievance, and entitlement politics – the stink and scum that have barred most of the world from advancement for millennia.
Also: Republicans want to lose. It’s their business, while they help plunder the US public. How many Americans really want to pee in public in front of members of the opposite sex? But the GOP can’t bring itself to represent the vast majority because it is sold out to big donors. That is why it will not survive this election, whoever wins.
See also: Trump plays the legacy media again They keep tweeting “we been had” and swear words. Ummmm!