US election: round one, no knockout

Hillary Clinton looked sharper, but Donald Trump is far from beaten.

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton shake hands at the start of their first presidential campaign debate at Hofstra University in New York yesterday.

For the two most unpopular candidates in the history of US presidential elections, the great debate at New York’s Hofstra University yesterday was always going to be crucial.

But also, it was always unlikely to be decisive. And after 90 minutes slugging it out — and with two more debates before polling day on November 8 — it is clear the race between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is far from over and very much game on.

Clinton probably emerged the winner. She achieved what she set out to do, asserting herself as the candidate of stability, while Trump cast himself as the candidate of change — an appealing message to Americans frustrated by their government — while painting Clinton as more of the same, a “typical politician, no action”.

After a slow start, she niggled and got under his skin. She got him shouting at her, which was what she wanted the vast audience of 100 million Americans and countless others around the world to see.

Clinton exploited suspicions about Trump’s persistent refusal to publish his tax returns, implying he is not as rich as he claims and that he pays very little tax. And she ended on a high note, highlighting his gross sexism against women, noting his references to women as “pigs”, “slobs”, “dogs” and “Miss Piggy”.

But don’t for a minute believe that this was a Clinton walkover. It wasn’t. Trump had his moments, especially on job creation and America being dudded on trade deals, that will appeal to his bedrock support base: white non-college-educated workers.

What emerged clearly is that the race is far from over. Fifty-six years ago, when the first televised presidential debate was held, impact was immediate and decisive.

Republican Richard Nixon was ahead in the polls and looking like a winner. But black-and-white television accentuated his heavy jowls and ill-shaven appearance. He had a heavy cold, was sweating profusely, appeared shifty and avoided eye contact with the cameras. That played into perceptions of him as “Tricky Dicky” and was in sharp contrast to Democrat John F. Kennedy’s youthful appearance. Nixon never recovered. The debate turned the polls. Kennedy won, and Nixon, in his memoir, bemoaned that “I should have remembered that a picture is worth a thousand words”.

There have been similar instances when a debate has proved decisive — as in 1976, when Gerald Ford, facing Jimmy Carter, catastrophically asserted that “there is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, and there never will be under a Ford administration”, this at a time when the Kremlin was in control of much of the region behind the Iron Curtain.

In 1992, when George HW Bush debated Bill Clinton, he appeared bored and looked at his watch when a member of the public asked a question, admitting later that what he was wondering was whether there was “only 10 minutes more of this crap”. He went on to lose, as did Al Gore when, in 2000, he debated George W. Bush and could be heard sighing loudly as Bush spoke, leaving voters with a perception he was above it all. That assured his subsequent defeat.

But there have been instances when candidates have done badly on TV, yet recovered and gone on to win.

In 2012, when Barack Obama sought a second term against the Republican nominee Mitt Romney, he did poorly in the first debate. There was speculation that Obama’s performance was so bad that Romney could win. Yet he recovered in the next round and won a substantial victory.

Similarly, in 1984 when Ronald Reagan was up against Walter Mondale, he did disastrously in the first debate. Mid-sentence, he forgot what he was talking about, feeding perceptions that he was beyond it all because of his age. In the second debate, he bounced back, making light of what had happened by saying with a smile: “I will not make age an issue in this campaign. I will not exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience.”

Even Mondale was amused. And Reagan went on to win a huge victory.

History suggests that, without a clear winner, it would be wrong to read too much into yesterday’s first debate. It’s what happens from now that counts, given that 34 per cent of American voters say they are waiting for the debates before making up their minds.

Significantly, a key finding by pollsters prior to yesterday’s stoush was that voters believe Clinton is prepared to be president by roughly 60 per cent to 30 per cent, and that, by roughly 60 per cent to 30 per cent, they think Trump is not.

How those numbers stack up after the first debate will be critical to who ends up in the White House. Certainly, Clinton’s manner during the 90 minutes will do much to reassure voters concerned about her recent bout of pneumonia and the assertions by Trump that she neither “looks presidential” nor has the stamina to meet the challenges of Islamist terrorism.

Clinton was cool, calm and collected, the antithesis of the malign caricature of “Crooked Hillary” that Trump seeks to draw of her. David Axelrod, one of Obama’s closest advisers, makes the point that in the Obama-Clinton presidential debates, Clinton was a formidable opponent who got the better of Obama with her meticulous attention to detail and lawyer’s marshalling of facts and arguments.

That was clearly on display yesterday.

Even as he bellowed at her over jobs and trade deals (including the Trans-Pacific Partnership) he regards as antipathetic to US interests, she remained calm, gently mocking him with a smile.

Trump, too, appeared, for the most part, presidential. But there were times he was on the verge of losing his composure as he sought to interrupt Clinton by shouting at her and seeking to bully her.

She niggled; he reacted: his answer to a question on the incendiary “birther” issue — his persistent assertions that Obama was not born in the US and therefore not a legitimate occupant of the White House — was as implausible as it was feeble.

So too were his attempts to wriggle out of a question about why he has failed to release his tax returns, something that spurred Clinton to assert that he is probably not as rich as he claims and that he probably pays no US federal tax. She went on to cast aspersions on his much vaunted claims about his business acumen by pointing out that he has been through six bankruptcies.

Undaunted, Trump ploughed on, insisting that “I have much better judgment than she has, there’s no question about that, and I have a much better temperament”.

That, in the end, is what the debate came down to — and probably what the first face-off signifies for the rest of the race before polling day. Who, indeed, has the better temperament to govern from the White House as leader of the free world?

Certainly, there were questions by Trump that raise serious issues about Clinton. She skated around her controversial use of a private email server when secretary of state, admitting it was a mistake and making a full apology for having done so.

That “mistake” (Trump contends it was deliberate) raises issues that go to the heart of her suitability to be president. She seemed too robotic when it came to race relations and the way so many black Americans are falling victims to gun crime.

Trump scored a strong hit against her on law and order, which undoubtedly has huge appeal among all Americans, black and white alike.

He also managed to row back strongly on his previous wacky assertions that NATO is “obsolete” and that he would be happy to see Japan, South Korea and Saudi Arabia get nuclear weapons, recovering some ground from his original gaffes.

Many US commentators are calling the debate for Clinton. They are probably right. But don’t discount Trump. He is still very much in the race. Expectations of him pre-debate were low compared to Clinton, with her vast experience at the heart of Washington power structures, in the White House, as a US senator, and as secretary of state.

She did not disappoint her supporters. But neither did Trump disappoint his, as he came off a low base, showing he is not the total nincompoop on policy he is often portrayed as.

So how will the debate affect the polls showing a statistical dead heat, wiping out the eight-point lead Clinton had a month ago? Undecided voters, the key to victory, reacted coolly, especially to Trump’s persistent outbursts.

Ari Fleischer, press secretary to George W. Bush and now a Trump supporter, says Trump’s interruptions may not serve him. “Those for Trump are still for him, and those for Hillary are still for her. The undecided are probably still undecided. I would add, however, that Hillary stayed calm and cool and I thought Trump was too hot too often.”

Neil Levesque, of the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College, says both candidates connected with voters. But he is struck by the vast difference in the way the candidates came across. Trump did well in channelling voter anger, but Clinton got the better of the argument over his tax returns. “Trump didn’t lose votes from those who turned on to the debate supporting him,” he says. “Clinton might have motivated her base and brought some undecideds her way with her composed answers”.

Brookings Institution scholar William Galston says Clinton may have broken through with the undecided, college-educated voters she needs. “She gave them a sense of competence, mastery, cool-headedness and leadership.”

And so the race goes on, with the next debate scheduled for October 9 and the final face-off on October 19.

Rather like what happened in our own election debates between Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten, those looking for a knockout blow leave disappointed. There wasn’t one. And both Clinton and Trump — especially Trump — will be relieved to have got through this critical test.

Worryingly, the fact the debate was so much about temperament and character meant there was not enough attention to vital security and strategic issues such as defeating Islamic State.

As usual, Trump claimed to have a plan, but, as usual, didn’t reveal it. Clinton was more detailed, but far from convincing, it was nothing more than a continuation of the Obama administration policy. Trump claimed “hundreds” of generals were lining up to support him; Clinton questioned his qualifications to be commander-in-chief with a finger on the nuclear button.

In many ways, this most extraordinary election race between two deeply unpopular candidates, is a contest over their respective suitability to hold the most powerful office in the world: US president, commander-in-chief and leader of the free world.

On their showing yesterday, both still have a way to go to be convincing, particularly Trump.

He concedes that Clinton has experience, but dismisses it as “bad experience” that would ill-serve America’s interests.

But throughout the 90 minutes, it was clear that Trump, despite his expansive claims about his business expertise and success, has nothing to match Clinton’s experience.

That is something that, as the debate clearly showed, he must work very hard on over the next few weeks if he is to succeed in ­defeating her.