THE DEBATE’S BIGGEST LOSER.

The consensus on the post- debate panels Monday night, even among Democrats, was that Donald Trump had done well in the first half hour, when the subject was the economy and when, crucially, most people were watching.

Hillary Clinton, by contrast, hadn’t exactly done poorly at the start — even if her eyes were glazed and she seemed to be swaying slightly, as if she might faint — but she had come on strong in the final two- thirds, when the subject changed to Trump’s taxes and business practices, the “birther” disgrace, women as pigs, and so on. So she’ll win among conscientious viewers who stuck it out to the bitter end ( and it did get bitter, with Trump congratulating himself for not sliming her with Bill’s philandering, which of course was a way of sliming her) while he may win among low- attention- span viewers who gave up early, which seems only fitting.

Trump did say that if he hadn’t paid any federal taxes, that would be smart, while if he had stiffed contractors, that was just business, comments that made me wonder what Mitt Romney must have been thinking (“I get crucified for my low average tax rate while this guy is utterly shameless and yet doesn’t seem to lose by it!?”). Although you can bet the Clinton campaign will paste together video ads featuring Trump’s comments. Am I the only person living who remembers Trump saying, at the Republican debate in Houston in February: “Mitt Romney looked like a fool when he delayed and delayed and delayed ( issuing his tax returns)… Mitt Romney didn’t file his return until Sept. 21 of 2012, about a month- and- a- half before the election. And it cost him big league.”

CNN’s instant poll, though overweighted with Democrats, gave the debate to Mrs. Clinton by an impressive 62 to 27 per cent. But an even bigger l oser than Trump in this debate was economic good sense.

In those first 30 minutes in which Trump supposedly did well he mainly attacked trade, as he always does. Trumponomics says that if a country has both a trade surplus and a trade deal with the U. S., it’s a bad trade deal that he’ ll therefore re- negotiate. Canada has both so we’d better watch out. Last year our surplus with the U. S. was $ 34 billion. But the dog that wags the tail, not the other way round, is that our exports to the U. S. were almost $ 400 billion and our imports over $ 360 billion. Which partner happens to have the trade surplus is often the least important part of trade.

Trump set great store by the fact that Mexico’s value- added tax ( VAT) doesn’t apply to exports to the U. S., which is supposed to be unfair. But excusing exports from VAT is how you establish a level playing field. Both Mexican imports and U. S. domestic goods pay U. S. sales taxes. And American goods going to Mexico pay Mexico’s VAT. How again is that unfair?

Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton gave only a tepid defence of trade. “We are five per cent of the world’s population” — which Americans might not like being reminded of — “we have to trade with the other 95 per cent.” So trade, like eating our broccoli, is something “we have to” do. Then the candidates arm- wrestled about who had opposed more trade deals and when exactly Mrs. Clinton had come out against the Trans- Pacific Partnership, She claimed she had hoped it would be the “gold standard” of trade deals, not that it was. Unfortunately, CNN later played a tape of her reading a speech to an Australian audience that contradicted that claim.

But no one argued what’s actually true: That TPP is an American invention to take on China — which is what Trump says he wants to do — and that freer trade, Washington’s geo- strategy since 1935, has served Americans well. Mrs. Clinton did note that manufacturing employment had risen in the 1990s despite NAFTA, but she didn’t make her point very forcefully.

For his part, Trump proposed lower taxes and less regulation, but in a way so free of convincing justification that he can’t really have advanced the cause of smaller government. In response, Clinton stayed left. Her coinage of “Trumped- up trickle- down,” a mouthful she stumbled over, seems unlikely to catch on. Her prescription for economic growth is the bureaucrat’s version of “There’s an app for that!” — namely, “There’s a program for that!”

Will we get better economics in the next two debates? It depends whether Trump decides he lost because he slung too much mud or not enough. Three guesses as to which way that goes.

What would be the election’s best outcome? President Clinton and Speaker Paul Ryan stuck with each other and having to make deals. Unfortunately, that particular combination isn’t on any ballot.

THE CANDIDATES ARM-WRESTLED ABOUT WHO HAD OPPOSED MORE TRADE DEALS AND WHEN EXACTLY CLINTON HAD COME OUT AGAINST THE TPP.