{"id":6114,"date":"2016-09-27T15:49:07","date_gmt":"2016-09-27T19:49:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.furman.edu\/news\/2016\/09\/27\/professor-inabinet-discusses-who-won-and-who-lost-debate\/"},"modified":"2022-11-06T20:43:48","modified_gmt":"2022-11-07T01:43:48","slug":"professor-inabinet-discusses-who-won-and-who-lost-debate","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.furman.edu\/news\/professor-inabinet-discusses-who-won-and-who-lost-debate\/","title":{"rendered":"Professor Inabinet Discusses Who Won and Who Lost Debate"},"content":{"rendered":"

On Monday night, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump squared off in what may have been the most anticipated American presidential debate in history.\u00a0 Dr. Brandon Inabinet, an associate professor of Communication Studies at Furman, moderated a Debate Watch on campus with approximately 100 students in attendance.\u00a0 We asked him how Clinton and Trump fared in the debate and what the students thought of the candidates\u2019 performances.<\/em><\/p>\n

Q:<\/strong> You polled the students following the debate.\u00a0 Who did they think won?<\/p>\n

\"Dr.

Dr. Brandon Inabinet<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n

Inabinet:<\/strong> Secretary Clinton won fairly substantially and even added some voters. We use remote polling devices, and with students packing the classroom, the questions I asked regarding the debate results went drastically in her favor.<\/p>\n

The debate had more subtle results on the anticipated voting booth behavior\u2014we went from 27 for Trump and 27 Clinton (with 13 for the other candidates), to 24 Trump and 32 Clinton (with 9 for the other candidates). So if students went to the voting booth on September 27, Secretary Clinton would likely have taken the lead, even though she was initially even with Mr. Trump before the debate began, both in our room and in the national polls.<\/p>\n

Q:<\/strong> Why do you think Hillary Clinton fared well in the debate for these students?<\/p>\n

Inabinet:<\/strong> She managed her time well and the students noted this. Most ordinary citizens are not used to the sounds of democracy, unlike debate teachers like me!\u00a0 When Americans, oversaturated with information, turn on the television and see shouting or street protests, they would prefer clarity of roles and order\u2014polite and quiet, without resistance or argumentation. So, with that need in mind, Secretary Clinton managed to pace herself well, especially on questions of race, by slowing her pace when she was allotted time, using the time given without going over, and yielding to the moderator, Lester Holt.<\/p>\n

In terms of tone, she had to avoid sounding \u201cshrill\u201d or \u201cfussy,\u201d which are traits voters (male and female) especially judge in women, while at the same time holding her argumentative ground. Through clear preparation, including cases, examples, and coded labels of Trump\u2019s proposals, she ran a good counterargument.<\/p>\n

Q:<\/strong> How about Donald Trump? Even if the students thought he \u201clost,\u201d did he excel in any particular area?<\/p>\n

Inabinet:<\/strong> Let\u2019s start with the negatives. He appeared nasty and less respectful, in students\u2019 view. In the first few seconds, his louder breathing and his pushiness toward Clinton in asking if it was \u201cOK\u201d to call her \u201cSecretary Clinton\u201d all seemed like he was dismissive. His use of different wording (like \u201cLaw & Order\u201d instead of \u201cLaw\u201d) and question redirection (such as answering with his slogan, \u201cMake America Great Again\u201d) seemed reductive to students.<\/p>\n

\"Approximately

Approximately 100 Furman students attended the Debate Watch Monday night.<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n

He excelled in the use of rhetorical devices that were classic to him and enjoyable for the students. If a person is unaware of their rhetorical artistry, these devices can be very effective, especially since his airtime has made them part of our everyday media consumption. So, for example, the major one he uses is paralepsis. It involves \u201cI\u2019m not saying X,\u201d while actually very clearly making that point. He said many times he \u201cwasn\u2019t bragging\u201d about his business successes, but touted his business successes for much of the debate, including his inclusive clubs that allow African-Americans and Muslims to patronize, his beautiful hotels that were quickly established, his profits, and his ability to avoid paying taxes. He similarly said he \u201cwasn\u2019t complaining,\u201d about his audits, but by repeating the issue several times, was doing that very thing simultaneously.<\/p>\n

Q:<\/strong> In terms of communication strategy, how would you advise the two going forward?<\/p>\n

Inabinet:<\/strong> Clinton\u2019s commercials are still having to do some rhetorical work her voice hasn\u2019t grown into completely. In future debates and speeches, she will need to find higher emotional and moral valences. Most of her best moments were the zingers and shocked or giddy reactions to Mr. Trump’s \u201ccrazy\u201d claims, \u201cTrumped Up Trickle Down,\u201d and his lack of preparation and \u201ccavalier attitude.\u201d If she wants to attract moderates, she needs to elevate a concern for \u201claw\u201d to one of \u201cjustice.\u201d Instead of just being \u201ctough\u201d on enemies and \u201cworking closely\u201d with allies in foreign policy, she needs to remind us of a global \u201cAmerican extended family\u201d worth protecting, for example. When Mr. Trump calls for returning to \u201cstop and frisk,\u201d ending \u201cworld policing\u201d of enemies, or leaving \u201closing deals\u201d with allies, she would have given us a better frame under which to consider them, rather than needing direct counterargument strategies to each point. I imagine this will come in future debates.<\/p>\n

\"Dr.

Dr. Inabinet moderated the Debate Watch Monday night.<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n

Mr. Trump is a novelty act still, so I have less advice there.\u00a0 As with my friends in Political Science, we are having a hard time explaining the phenomenon, except with some reference to populism and demagoguery. Unlike most politicians who are very self-policing and corrective, as Secretary Clinton clearly is from a lifetime in politics, Mr. Trump will use the same diction for which he was earlier mocked without worry. Mexico and China were loudly pronounced in the first few sentences of his presentation. Things were \u201chuge.\u201d If most of us used the word \u201cbigly,\u201d we\u2019d note its awkwardness in our mouths and try to adjust. Mr. Trump is able to repeat it, alongside many other devices of amplification and repetition (\u201cbeautiful,\u201d \u201cbiggest,\u201d \u201cgreatest\u201d), without flinching. So I think much of his success, of \u201ctelling it like it is,\u201d is often less about content, and more about this high-style tropes and figures in low\u2014even coarse\u2014speaking style. It\u2019s a kind of \u201ctruth telling\u201d for our age, in which the actual truth is readily available through fact-finding and information at our fingertips, so politicians are tasked with exceeding those facts \u201cauthentically\u201d (ironically), in the same way students might \u201cliterally die every time he talks.\u201d<\/p>\n

Even if I were to coach Mr. Trump, I\u2019m not sure he would change! And that probably will work well for him\u2014well enough that the political establishment and the party system will be rocked off-center whether he wins or not.<\/p>\n

Q:<\/strong> Do you think the debate will have a significant impact on the presidential race during the final six weeks of the campaign?<\/p>\n

Inabinet:<\/strong> Yes, but of course just as much for what the late night shows and Saturday Night Live make of them as any substantive content. Look, it makes me cringe to call these \u201cdebates.\u201d I need to hear them take \u201cpro\u201d and \u201ccon\u201d positions on agreed-upon resolutions. I need them to cite evidence from sources reluctant to their own positions. The 18 to 21 year-olds at Furman could astound you doing these things. Neither candidate \u201castounded\u201d any of us Monday night. Yet in a tight election, the ammunition they give for punditry, social media memes, satire, and fact-checking will tilt the polls throughout October.<\/p>\n

Q:<\/strong> Some estimates had the audience for the debate at 100 million people.\u00a0 Did they witness anything to make them feel positive about America\u2019s political process?<\/p>\n

Inabinet:<\/strong> Even though Secretary Clinton won the debate for all the reasons I\u2019ve mentioned, it did normalize the \u201cTrump phenomenon\u201d just to see him in that same spot we\u2019ve seen our Presidential candidates since the 1960s. When the camera first cut to him, students audibly laughed. They cannot believe older generations have selected him as a candidate for their first electoral vote: with his beauty pageants, casinos, and steaks; conspiracy theories about birth certificates and climate change. Similarly, when many students were pulling for Bernie Sanders until July, they now see the Democratic candidate chosen mostly for her clout and fundraising, while as Millennials, they believe that their ideas about changing the world should matter most.<\/p>\n

Perhaps most horrifically, the final question of the debate was not for grand statements of principle or the genius of the American political experiment, but just whether the candidates would even abide by the results of an election. Grim.<\/p>\n

Hope remains in local action. Furman students are creating a movement for the right to vote in Greenville County based on their Furman residence. When a student asked if he could pass out registration forms, the room quickly was electric in anticipation of making history to increase voter participation. They want to make a difference\u2014but they believe the difference will likely not be the outcome of this election. For now, a functional political process is a dream deferred, perhaps a few votes down the line. After all, most of these students should be voting in a 2080 election, which will make this whole grueling affair look quaint.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On Monday night, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump squared off in what may have been the most anticipated American presidential debate in history.\u00a0 Dr. Brandon Inabinet, an associate professor of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":265,"featured_media":16237,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[15,51,32,30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6114","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-academic-department-page","category-communication-studies","category-politics-and-international-affairs","category-top-stories"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.furman.edu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6114","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.furman.edu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.furman.edu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.furman.edu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/265"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.furman.edu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6114"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.furman.edu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6114\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.furman.edu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/16237"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.furman.edu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6114"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.furman.edu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6114"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.furman.edu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6114"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}