Round 2: An English Educator’s Perspective on the 2016 Town-hall Presidential Debate

While my analysis of the first debate included more logical frameworks from an English teacher’s perspective, I must approach this debate from a broader pedagogical angle. Measuring grade level of the candidates’ speech matters little given the free-for-all nature of the debate. The length each candidate spoke is also of less importance for the same reason. However, whether or not Trump or Clinton answered the asked questions adequately and how they addressed the “assignment” given to them by the nation going into Sunday night’s debate is of the utmost importance.

For this analysis, I consider the following areas:

1. Number of Interruptions
2. Percentage Ratio of True to False Statements Made
3. Connection with the Audience At-Large
4. Answering the Implied Question

Number of Interruptions

Trump: Interrupted Clinton: 13x / Interrupted Moderators: 13x | TOTAL: 26

Clinton: Interrupted Trump: 2x / Interrupted Moderators: 3x | TOTAL: 5

Moderators: Interrupted Trump: 34x / Interrupted Clinton: 17x | TOTAL: 51

The inclusion of moderators leads to an important point in an evaluation done by an educator. If asking students to present in a similar fashion, their interruption of me is acceptable up to maybe five times. My interruption of them should only need to occur up to approximately 10 times for clarification purposes. Neither candidate fares well in the latter category. The numbers above are drawn from two screenings of the debate and a reading of the transcript, as well as a breakdown provided by BlooombergPolitics.

ADVANTAGE: CLINTON

Percentage Ratio of True to False Statements Made

Half truths are not considered in the determination. They are provided for information purposes only.

Trump: True:6/Half-True:5/False:15 |Percentage: 28.5%Truth/40%Ratio

Clinton: True:7/Half-True:3/False:4 |Percentage: 63.6%Truth/175%Ratio

This data is an evaluative combination of statements made as performed by PolitiFact and FactCheck. While Trump and Clinton issue almost exact amounts of “true” statements, any true evaluation can’t place truth in a vacuum by itself. Regardless of many accurate assessments my students make on their work, they will receive multiple marks against them for the amount of inaccurate statements. Neither am I concerned with the length of the work or the amount of statements made. I am concerned with the accuracy of the statements.

ADVANTAGE: CLINTON

Connection with the Audience At-Large

This category can’t be necessarily be measured with in-present audience reaction, though such will be one of the categories given the Washington University audience’s reactions to the candidates. I must go to various polls to determine connectivity. Whether a writer or speaker, failing to connect with the at-large audience is a loss. Given that a debate is a competition and this debate plays itself in ripples before and beyond itself, polls offer the only viable alternative to analyze which candidate better connected with the audience. Note: Despite the subjective nature of polls, they are subject to the law of averages through probability and statistics. Thus, they may be used for objective analysis.

1. Washington University Audience: Trump advantage (observation)
2. Politico: Clinton advantage
3. NBCNews/Wall Street Journal/Marist: Clinton advantage
4. BBC News Average: Clinton advantage (up to, thru, and after debate)
5. FiveThirtyEight: Clinton advantage (indirect, seen strongly post-debate)

ADVANTAGE: CLINTON

Answering the Implied Question

Seeing a candidate answer the “asked” question in a presidential debate can prove as rare as hitting the Mega Millions. As someone who currently teaches college freshmen, the point remains the same. Therefore, we must go to the realm of the implied question.

Trump was responsible for a full, convincing mea culpa regarding his seemingly sexist and indifferent attitude toward women BEFORE going after Clinton and Company. A look of contrition mattered little. As Trump pointed out, words versus actions were important. Combine this with a continued lack of specific policy proposals, and failure is inevitable.

America looked for Clinton to exploit the events of the previous week and go for a “kill-shot” against Trump BEFORE launching into policy talking points. Though full of barbs, she never escalated her own rhetoric to specifically address the situation at hand — especially regarding the WikiLeaks reveal. The “they go low, we go high” mantra plays well, when the stakes aren’t elevated to the point they were going into Sunday night’s debate.

ADVANTAGE: NEITHER