In the wake of yesterday's debate, one can ignore both the online polls (slanted heavily towards Bernie because his flock is more likely to know how to use them) and the pronouncements of pundits (slanted heavily towards Hillary because they like the way she stayed disciplined.) How the scientific polls change in the days to come (if at all) is interesting, but it will likely fail to capture much of the real story.
Hillary looked good -- calm, confident, human, happy; she was in control, but not too much in control. She gave a good performance -- and note the absence of scare quotes. It would be a great performance if this had been a trial and she just finished up on the witness stand. But this is not that; this is early in the process, more like an early deposition than trial testimony. And her answers will be probed and prodded, stretched and strained, in the weeks and months to come.
Hillary may (or may not) have won the debate; but it wasn't just a debate. And that's the problem for her. Even if it was a good debate performance, it was not so good as a deposition. The test of a deposition is: how well what was said will stand up in the future. Will it withstand careful analysis? Will it crumble in the face of strong cross-examination? Did it create problems for her ability to keep her answers straight (and clear) in the future, as her antagonists repeatedly come back to it? If there's a reason that she (through her devoted follower Debbie Wasserman-Schultz) wants fewer debates, it may be to prevent further interrogation after her first responses largely did their job.
But that won't work. It's too early -- and now her answers are somewhat locked in. To see her problem, compare her performance to Bernie's.
Bernie's self-presentation to voters seemingly also came off well. That was not a given; compared to 20 or 30 or 40 years ago, people may be less used to hamish (homespun) Brooklyn Jewish tummlers (noisemakers) today. That Bernie wasn't off-putting was largely due to his great show of menschlichkeit -- the quality of showing honor, integrity, and nobility of purpose -- in his "enough already!" response to the questions about Hillary's emails. That played very well -- largely because it seemed entirely spontaneous and natural.
That electrifying (because so atypical of politicians) moment has been shared a whole lot by Hillary's supporters because they seem to think that it neutralizes the campaign issues. This is silliness; the attacks were never coming from Bernie, but from the Republicans, and the Republicans are not going to stop because Bernie says so. (In fact, they'll probably pick up.)
Bernie's answers on most all issues covered would stand up on cross-examination. Being pressed further on whether he sees any role for capitalism within democratic socialism is not going to hurt him; he certainly could use more time to explain it. He's not hiding anything in his answers; if he is ever being crafty, careful, or glib, it's hard to see. The seeming counter-example -- gun control -- offers a good indication of what he can expect to come out in future debates, time permitting.
His problem on gun control was that he wanted more time to explain, not that he wanted to run out the clock. The answer he was heading towards is almost exactly the same as Hillary's "I'm a progressive who wants to get things done" pitch. Bernie thinks that no matter how much progressives think that they can just roll over the NRA and the rural states, it's not going to happen so easily because -- especially in the Senate -- rural and conservative states have such a huge advantage at blocking progress; even if they didn't, the Supreme Count is there to block the goal. He thinks that, given his background, he can bridge the gap and accomplish some significant compromises.
Looking at the immense complexity of gun reform and the opportunities for demagoguery on both sides -- over-promising, on the left, and flat-out lying on the right -- he has a good argument that someone who can find the common ground where it can be found may be what is needed right now. (Who's going to be able to push through a compromise bill that punishes bad gun manufacturers but not merchants in most circumstances, Bernie or Hillary? It's not Hillary -- not without a supermajority of progressive Senators who have good reason to think that they can avoid being pummeled the NRA in their often rural or conservative states. We didn't just fall into this mess; the NRA and its allies worked hard to put us here!)
Bernie's stance on guns, is subtle, complex, and a little uncomfortable -- but he didn't say anything yesterday that will make it more so. It just gets better from here.
By contrast, political "experts" see Hillary as having done well in larger part because she gave a disciplined and well-practiced performance. She did a great job of deflecting questions and running out the clock. That's "how the game is played!" But transcripts will be plentiful today -- and they will be carefully read. Readers will have no shortage of "hey, wait a minute moments" in which she is seen to have deflected a question or changed a subject or gotten away with a glib response. She was impressive well-practiced -- that's not intended as a knock on her because it's a useful Presidential skill! -- at seeming natural and almost effortless while she fended off challenges left and right. (Mostly left.) But ... it's not going to look the same on paper. When reading something on paper, you have time to pause, to ponder, and to pursue. It won't look so good.
Hillary was saved by the bell, for example, when two of her rivals pointed out that her plan for intervention in Syria -- a "no fly zone" means downing whatever flies anyway and that means potential acts of war -- and would not likely still the Russians. She says that no one wants troops on the ground in Syria -- good line! -- but how will she prevent the policy she favors from leading right into that quagmire? That is a great line of questioning on cross-examination. It didn't happen yesterday -- but it will!
That she did very well in her answer to Dana Bash's question on family leave -- a topic on which her experience is great and her passion is aflame -- will look as good on paper as it did on cable TV, but it will also offer a stark contrast to her replies to other questions. What was that she said about marijuana legalization: yes on medical, no for now on recreational, but don't send people to jail for it? That's going to a good line of questioning on cross-examination: is she planning on just fining people into oblivion? Is she planning on any punishment at all for recreational use? If not, then how will that differ from legalization? She didn't run out of time to answer a question on which she has a well-thought-out position, like Sanders on guns; she ran out the clock. But a new game -- with a fresh clock -- starts again soon, and questions can pick up right where she left off!
The question of whether she tells people what they want to hear and changes her tune as seems advantageous at a given moment -- the latter being a charge that can't even be leveled at Bernie Sanders with a straight face -- led to a response about how everyone should be open to new information as it appears. But won't that call for elaboration that she'd like to avoid? "What changed your mind on TPP, Madame Secretary?" (We already know -- and it renders her answer highly disingenuous. More on that another time.) "How do you reconcile your conclusion with what other people say that you told them about your views of the KXL pipeline? Were they all lying?"
This explanation has gone on long enough; it simply covers a few examples from memory. Soon, people will begin picking apart all of her answers, but now -- having already gotten past the preliminaries -- it will be harder to drill her on the precise evasions, diminutions, and rationalizations that get her through another day. And the further the examination of her statements from this and future transcripts goes, the harder it is going to be to prep for them. She'll say "I've already answered that" -- but a good questioner is going to be able to show that she hasn't. She may have won the pundits yesterday, but she didn't win the reporters. She probably just made them hungry.
Hillary may be the nominee, so everyone should be glad that since 2008 she's picked up some of the slickness with which her husband was apparently born. (We won't like it after she becomes President, if she does -- but at least it will make it easier for her to get there.) But even her husband got trapped from time to time, including in one notable deposition -- and the results weren't at all pretty. Hillary did do a good job yesterday -- but today is another day, and people have already been reading, asking questions, taking notes -- preparing for next time.
Depositions are scary things. Those transcripts can really kill you when you get to trial. And from here on, every debate is both a deposition and a trial.