Who won, who lost?
Marc Ambinder, Los Angeles editor: “The debate started roughly for Hillary Clinton. In a span of 25 minutes, Donald Trump interrupted her more than 20 times. ... Then Clinton turned it around. She apologized for using a private email server. It’s arguably her biggest vulnerability and she closed it up. Just a single sentence, and a simple apology. Then she baited Trump. She took on his single biggest character vulnerability — his refusal to release his taxes — and insinuated that he had something to hide. That he might not be as wealthy as he seemed. Moderator Lester Holt turned to the Republican. Trump gripped his lectern. He called her email server ‘more than a little problem.’ But then he couldn’t help himself. He didn’t follow up. He instead offered a convoluted defense of his refusal to release his tax returns. ... From there, the debate opened up. Trump stopped interrupting her. ... He lost chance after chance to convince voters that Clinton is unfit to be the president because of her decisions and choices.”
Katrina Trinko, managing editor for The Daily Signal: “Fresh off polling momentum in the wake of Clinton’s campaign’s weirdly secretive handling of her pneumonia, with a large chunk of the country still undecided, Trump had a chance to show he wasn’t just a reality show buffoon or the small-minded bigot his critics have painted him as. In some ways, he succeeded, largely sidestepping policy gaffes, and consistently depicting Clinton as a Washington insider who had experience — but no wins to show for it.”
Paul Brandus, founder of West Wing Reports: “The pundits said going into Monday night that the bar was lower for Trump. It wasn’t. When 64% of Americans say you lack the ‘right kind of temperament and personality’ to be president, that’s a actually a high bar to clear. And he failed to clear it. He even had the gall — after insulting everyone but grandmothers and Girl Scouts over the past year — to complain that Clinton was attacking him. ‘It’s not nice,’ he said. Clinton looked like a president tonight, a commander in chief. Trump looked rattled, frantic and, at times, bellicose. She just smiled. If Trump was being graded in a curve, as some said, he still failed. But remember: Barack Obama lost his first debate with Mitt Romney four years ago. Who’s president now?”
Kirsten Powers, USA TODAY columnist and CNN contributor: “Clinton faced off not just against Trump at the pair’s first presidential debate, but also against the sexist tropes he has used to try and define her. ... Trump’s trash talking is more effective than we might like to admit. It’s meant to feed into sexist suspicions that are already deeply embedded in our collective unconscious. Trump is activating these notions the same way he activated dormant concerns in voters’ minds about ‘ low energy’ Jeb’s seeming lack of enthu- siasm about running for president, ‘Lyin’ Ted’s inexplicable creepiness or ‘Little’ Marco’s youthful demeanor.”
Frank Bruni, The New
York Times: “More than 10% of Americans support a third-party contender. ... Trump may well have an edge in wooing them, because the share of Americans who believe that the country is on the wrong track is more than double the share who believe that it’s on the right track. They’re desperate for a swerve. Clinton isn’t the most plausible agent of that, not after a quarter-century as a Democratic standard-bearer, not with a previous stint in the White House, not with President Obama imploring Americans to honor and safeguard his legacy by choosing her. And she in some ways had the tougher assignment in Monday night’s debate — and in the two debates that are scheduled to follow. She must convince the holdouts that she’s honest and trustworthy. How, in 90 minutes at a lectern, do you do that? What’s the best script?”
Jonathan C. Rothermel, Fox News: “Fans of the popular drama The West Wing will remember the classic fictional presidential debate between Matt Santos (played by Jimmy Smits) and Arnold Vinick (played by Alan Alda) in 2005. In a special live broadcast, viewers were treated to the best-scripted ‘unscripted’ debate. Minutes after entering the debate stage, the candidates made an impromptu decision to throw out the rules and engage in a refreshingly open debate. Obviously, the stakes are simply too high for any major presidential candidate to engage in a candid political discussion with their opponent in front of millions of viewers. Such a thing could only happen in Hollywood.”
Dan Payne, president of the Democratic strategy firm Payne & Co.: “In presidential debate season, inevitably one of the candidates will ask for a Lincoln-Douglas style debate. This is commonly misunderstood as two candidates slugging it out without time limits or interruptions or moderators — perhaps what Trump had in mind when he envisioned a debate consisting of Clinton and himself just ‘sitting there, talking.’ But of course, the Lincoln-Douglas debates were nothing like that. The format for what were called the Great Debates of 1858 was one that very few voters and zero TV networks could tolerate today. One candidate spoke for 60 minutes uninterrupted, then the other took charge of the podium for 90 minutes; finally, the first candidate was allowed back for a 30-minute rejoinder.”
Jill Stein, Green Party nominee, Twitter: “Most Clinton supporters are just anti-Trump, and most Trump backers are just anti-Clinton. You have better choices.”
Gary Johnson, Libertarian Party nominee, Twitter: “Please, America. Get them to put a third podium on that debate stage on Oct. 9.”