Five things we learned during the second U.S. Presidential debate

Dr Nwokora, an expert on US politics and the US presidential nomination process and Lecturer in American and Comparative Politics, said the combative nature of the debate began early when the candidates didn’t shake hands.

“That’s the first time I’ve seen a debate kick off without the candidates shaking hands. It’s almost as if they were clear from the get go that it was ‘gloves off’,” Dr Nwokora said.

“It’s also the first time I’ve ever heard a Presidential candidate threaten to send another candidate to prison. He’s said a few things during the campaign that responsible politicians in established democracies don’t say but this is definitely up there.

“It’s the kind of comment that you would expect from really poorly institutionalised democratic systems or autocracies. It’s very unusual and, dare I say it, slightly dangerous.”

According to Dr Nwokora, there were five clear lessons to be learned from the debate.

1. The candidates’ defensive tactics were very different

While Trump attempted to downplay the significance of his missteps, Clinton attempted to swivel and take the moral high ground when attacked.

“Trump’s approach was to try and downplay what has been said. He said that it was ‘locker room talk’, suggesting that he’d never done this,” Dr Nwokora said.

“He then deflected, saying that ‘we’ve got all these big issues in the world’; that what he talked about 10 years ago and didn’t do is totally trivial and we should be concentrating on these big global issues.

“Clinton was attacked very directly by Trump for the affairs of her husband. Rather than engaging on the issue and explaining it, Clinton tried to change tack by re-using a line she used in the first debate from Michelle Obama – “when they go low we go high”.

2. The Obama administration looms large in this race

Even though he’s not in the race, Barack Obama is everywhere in this conversation.

“His presence in this race has shaped how the candidates talk about policy,” Dr Nwokora said.

“For Trump, his main attack when it comes to policy is to say that Obama’s administration has failed and that voting for Clinton is “voting for four more years of Obama”.

“The presence of Obama is also interesting for Clinton, as she’s got to try to weave this very tricky balancing act of trying to claim credit for the things that the Obama administration has done well while trying to distance herself from things that didn’t go well.”

3. Trump’s campaign team was able to stage manage him

From the appearance of the “Clinton ladies” to the focus on specific attack points, it was clear that Trump’s campaign team had put in the hard yards to prepare before this debate.

“In the first debate, Trump was basically speaking off the cuff, impromptu – and perhaps that suits his personality and his style – but it was very clear that he was much better prepared this time around,” Dr Nwokora said.

“That came across in the sharpness of his attacks and a clear sense that he had an agenda to tie Clinton to Obama, expose her on his poor standing with women, and he also tried to pin her down on the email scandal as well. Clinton, as you might expect after her polished performance in the first debate, was impeccably prepared.”

4. Policy has taken a back seat as personal integrity becomes the focus

Dr Nwokora said that personality, personal integrity, and leadership questions are mattering more than policy questions.

“The amount of time they spent in that attack-and-defend mode rather than elaborating on or explaining policy was interesting,” Dr Nwokora said.

"The proportion of time spent on the latter was pretty small in comparison to other debates. If you were a voter in that debate, you wouldn’t have learnt much about the candidates’ policies.”

5. The candidates’ vision for America’s future are in stark contrast

There are a number of interesting policy differences between the candidates and it’s very clear they represent different policy visions.

“The Americas they want to create are radically different propositions,” Dr Nwokora said.

“Trump wants to scrap Obamacare, Clinton largely wants to keep it. Trump wants to save the coal industry, Clinton wants to make America a renewable energy superpower. Clinton thinks the Supreme Court is going in the wrong direction and she wants to reverse Citizens United. On the other hand, Trump is saying he wants continuity, that he wants another judge like Scalia, a judge who’s going to respect the constitution and doesn’t rock the boat.”

About Dr Zim Nwokora

Dr Zim Nwokora is a Lecturer in Politics and Policy Studies at Deakin University, where he teaches American and Comparative Politics. He obtained a doctorate from Oxford University in 2010 with a dissertation on the US presidential nomination process. His research since then has concentrated on political parties and political competition. His recent publications include an edited collection on the American presidency, entitled “The Presidential Leadership Dilemma: Between the Constitution and a Political Party” (SUNY Press), and a forthcoming article in the journal American Politics Research, entitled “Narratives of a Race: How the News Media Interpret a Presidential Debate.”

Media contact: Katie Thompson 0418 839 638