LZ Debate Squad: Finally a Trump-Clinton Contest on the Issues

After two presidential debates marred by bias from debate moderators who kept the conversation mired in the gutter, the third and final 2016 primetime contest finally offered voters a substantive discussion on the major issues facing the country.

Freed from having to engage in long battles over character attacks, Donald Trump was able to make a compelling case for voters to reject Hillary Clinton. He did so partly by the seriousness of the questions — but also by his own discipline.

[lz_poll id=228715 widget=1 width=300 height=250 align=right]

LifeZette’s “Debate Squad” of debate experts, political consultants, leading conservatives, and political science professors believed that Trump had his best night of the three debates — and that voters had their best look at the real policies behind the campaign rhetoric.

Reaction, however, was mixed as to whether Trump’s better performance would be enough to upend a contest that has been sliding toward Clinton.

Here were the main takeaways from the squad:

Dr. Ben Voth
Donald Trump turned in arguably his strongest debate of the year. Exercising an unusual sense of moderation and restraint, he mixed substantive details on foreign policy that likely would have eluded him or confused him in the Republican primary debates. Trump clearly came in attempting to offer a more calm, restrained demeanor. As the debate progressed, he tended to interrupt and assert “wrong” in response to some of Hillary Clinton’s answers. His closing statement was a good re-iteration of his basic campaign theme about making America great again. His strongest point of performance was when he scrutinized the Clinton and Obama foreign policy results in Syria and Iraq. He recognized Russia and Iran as intersecting agents that were stronger because of failed Clinton diplomacy with Iran and Russia.

[lz_jwplayer video= d7oPi3lo]

Clinton’s strongest moments came when she defended women against the regular callous language used by Trump and asked Americans to decide based upon that matter. She also gave a strong clear explanation of her economic positions. Clinton’s weakest moments were when she tried to blame Russia for WikiLeaks and sought to gain a condemnation from Trump about Russia’s interference in the election.

Moderator Chris Wallace continued to demonstrate the defects of the journalist-based moderator system. He chided the audience for making noise. He also tried to hold Trump alone to the idea that the election was going to end in his loss and he needed to promise to abide by the result. Wallace did tend to refrain from the fact checking evident in other debates.

Though the candidates did trade personal barbs, the final debate contained substantive points that voters may be able to hold onto in making a choice in November. So ends one of the most interesting, well-watched, and historic debates of the televised era.

Dr. Ben Voth is director of debate and associate professor at Southern Methodist University.

Eddie Zipperer
Trump had a very good night. This debate was all about this issues, and it wasn’t as exciting or as sexy as the first two debates, but it was the most substantive. Trump talked about trade and about taxes and about immigration and about growing the economy. He talked about bringing back American companies and American jobs, and he talked about putting pro-life, pro-Second Amendment judges on the Supreme Court. This performance could move the polls in Trump’s favor because there are a number of Republicans (a few) who are telling pollsters they aren’t voting for Trump. These are the kinds of issues that will bring them on board. He was more presidential, while still being himself.

Hillary Clinton had a terrible moment in the debate where they asked her if the Clinton Foundation engaged in a “pay to play” scheme and she stood there and delivered a commercial for the foundation.

[lz_jwplayer video= 7mLjKv8p]

The media is going to force the story of this debate to be Trump’s unwillingness to concede the election weeks in advance. But Trump doesn’t rule things out. He refuses to rule out legal challenges if he considers them necessary, and I think that’s fine. Democrats still complain that Bush didn’t really win the 2000 election. Gore didn’t accept the results; he mounted legal challenges. He asked for recounts. Yet the country continued on.

Overall, I think Trump did a good job of talking to those few Republicans who can still be reached this late in the game.

Eddie Zipperer is an assistant professor of political science at Georgia Military College and a regular LifeZette contributor.

Heather Richardson Higgins
Here’s what you should have been thinking today and all through the debate: Will it even matter?

Because however tonight polls, the Democrats will not let 20 days go to waste, and you know the next carefully choreographed accusation about Trump is being craftily cradled, and will just happen to drop shortly after this debate.

Who was the winner? Chris Wallace. So much better, serious, evenhanded moderating than any of the previous attempts. Breadth of topics, and digging in, all very well-done.

Regarding Trump saying he’d “wait and see” about the election outcome: Of course he responded that way! Anything else would have run contrary his entire reason for being a candidate: standing up to a corrupt system, uncowed, and fighting for fairness. So if Trump loses, expect him — as his supporters will — to first verify that he actually lost, that they weren’t cheated — and only then accept defeat. Anything less and they’d wonder what happened to their champion.

Heather Richardson Higgins is president and CEO of Independent Women’s Voice.

Ron Bonjean
Trump’s performance improved and he had a much better night than usual. Trump did make attempts at reaching out to people that feel left out by the economy but should have provided more detail like he did with his immigration plan. Unfortunately, any attempts made by Trump to attract voters outside of his base were prevented when he said that he might not accept the results of the November election.

[lz_jwplayer video= GFQ7B33T]

He did a much better job going after Clinton on her email scandals, the Clinton Foundation problems, and the revelations that her campaign may have paid to disrupt Trump rallies. He did not, however, pull a rabbit out of his hat and move the needle enough to change the negative direction of the campaign polls at this point.

Ron Bonjean is a partner of the public affairs firm Rokk Solutions. He remains the first person to serve as the lead spokesman in both the House of Representatives and the United States Senate. He has served as a strategist for the Republican National Committee in numerous senior communications roles for high-ranking officials.

Robert G. Kaufman
Consider the final Presidential debate a tale of two debates. The first half favored Trump largely because Chris Wallace forced the candidates to engage in an actual policy debate. Trump successfully contrasted his commitment to nominating judges who interpreted the Constitution as those who ratified it intended versus Mrs. Clinton’s preference for judges who substitute their progressive values for the wisdom of the Founding Fathers. Whereas Mrs. Clinton offered nothing but more government and taxes as a remedy for our economic woes, Trump made a compelling case for his alternative plan that envisages tax cuts and incentives to the private sector as the main engines for stimulating growth and reducing our gargantuan deficits. Trump’s decisiveness on border security also contrasted favorably with Mrs. Clinton’s embrace of amnesty and more of the same policies that have exacerbated economic and national security problems arising from rampant illegal immigration in the first place.

Even on foreign policy where Mrs. Clinton scored assailing Trump for cavalierly dismissing the benefits of the U.S. led global alliance system and the dangers of abandoning it, Trump held his own. He effectively catalogued the serial foreign policy failures of Obama and Clinton ranging from the premature withdrawal from Iraq leading to ISIS filling the vacuum, the feckless Iran deal, and the failure of the reset with Putin. Indeed, this debate favored Trump – like the election at large – whenever the discussion concentrated on policy and Mrs. Clinton’s dubious record.

Unfortunately, the second half of the debate reverted to the obsession with scandal and corruption of the candidates rather rather than substance. This dynamic favored Mrs. Clinton because it distracted attention from her greatest vulnerability while highlighting Trump’s most unflattering and un-presidential qualities. Even so, Trump handed his personal issues with greater deftness than the previous debate until he refused to pledge that he would accept the results of the election. That remark will likely haunt Trump in the coming days as the media’s post debate spin gives it prominence dwarfing his otherwise far more solid performance than in the previous two debates.

Trump needed a smashing victory to overcome Mrs. Clinton’s small but significant lead heading into the final two weeks of the campaign. Trump probably fell far short of that even before he likely doomed his chances, insinuating an unwillingness to accept an an adverse outcome in defiance of the venerable American tradition prevailing in nearly all past Presidential elections.

Robert G. Kaufman is a professor at Pepperdine University School of Public Policy and author of ‘Dangerous Doctrine: How Obama’s Grand Strategy Weakened America’.

Brian Darling
Donald Trump looked presidential tonight. This will be the debate that even the pundits have to admit, Donald Trump landed some serious punches.

The debate started poorly for Hillary Clinton when she had to talk about her strong backing of gun control and her phony support for the Second Amendment. When asked why she opposed the Supreme Court decision that solidified the individual right to own a firearm, Hillary made it about the children and claimed gun control was necessary because “toddlers … kill people with guns.” Many gun supporting rural Democrats took note and were horrified.

Trump argued that the Clinton Foundation was a “criminal enterprise” and said that she “should not be allowed to run” for President because of her infamous email scandal.

Accusing Hillary of corruption was clearly a centerpiece of his debate strategy. On foreign policy Trump married Obama’s failures in the Middle East to Hillary’s tenure as Secretary of State.

Trump did take a few solid punches on his recent scandal, yet he won this debate by hitting Hillary’s corruption and talking like a President.

Brian Darling is a former Sr. Communications Director and Counsel for Sen. Rand Paul. Follow him on Twitter @BrianHDarling.

Jenny Beth Martin
Tonight Donald Trump clearly won the third and final presidential debate by contrasting his vision of conservative change for the country against Hillary Clinton’s agenda of Obama liberalism on steroids. While Trump promised to appoint Supreme Court justices who would protect the Second Amendment and the rest of our Constitution, Hillary said she would choose judges who will put their thumbs on the scale to favor selected groups. Donald Trump promised to reduce spending and the size of government while cutting taxes for American families and generating new economic growth, while Hillary promised to double down on the failed Obama tax and spend economic agenda that has failed us over the last eight years. Donald Trump made clear he will repeal Obamacare and restore health care choice, while Hillary Clinton made it clear she would expand Obama’s failed government takeover of our health system. Donald Trump will secure our borders and enforce our immigration laws, while Hillary promised to move a bill to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants in her first 100 days in office.

[lz_jwplayer video= CxbfGNoX]

Donald Trump was the winner tonight because he made it clear he is the candidate of change at a time when more than 64 percent of Americans feel the country is on the wrong track. He embodied the change Americans are yearning for and exposed Hillary Clinton as another radical liberal who will double down on President Obama’s failed policies and further empower the Washington Establishment. The choice is clear — now it is up to the American people to vote for change, by voting for the Trump-Pence ticket.

Jenny Beth Martin is chair of Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund, the super PAC associated with the largest national Tea Party group in the country.

Beverly Hallberg
In a #SMH election cycle, last night’s debate marked the beginning of the end. This election season has been a race to the bottom, a bottom so deep most Americans are questioning how we got here.

[lz_related_box id=”228794″]

Thankfully, Debate #3 offered the first look at a good policy fight. But if asked who walked away with the W? The answer is simple: the American people.

I think it’s safe to say this debate did nothing to change the hearts and minds of voters, who most likely flipped the channel to the Dodgers vs. Cubs playoff game after screaming, “WHY CAN’T WE HAVE NICE THINGS??”

After three debates with lots of talk about scandals, mudslinging, missing emails, and lies, Americans deserve a drink.

The good news? We can all say goodbye to Hillary Clinton’s pantsuits, dodges on Benghazi, and that split screen. May it RIP.

And now? Baseball.

Beverly Hallberg is president of District Media Group.