Come on, what? You don't see how someone being under constant attack could be sympathetic? Have you never seen a situation where someone is being constantly berated in a small amount of time, and you maybe felt sorry for them even though you know they probably deserved it? I mean, it's a real thing, especially if expectations for the debater in question are low, which they were for Trump. Even if you don't mean SAVAGE OFFENSE each debate, you still look at the pace: 1st debate: Offense, 2nd debate: Offense, 3rd debate: Offense. It would kill the pacing Clinton set up, and make the offensive nature of the 3rd debate diminished. It's honestly very clear what she was doing now that all three debates are done.
No, I don't see how someone like Trump would be considered the victim in this scenerio, because he wouldn't be sitting idle. He'd be viciously attacking like we saw in the first 2 debates. His behavior is not dependent on whether Hillary attacks or not. And the pacing within debates itself is more important that the pacing between debates. Again, there would be plenty of time for Hillary to act presidential while still taking time to attack Trump where needed.
No, she corrected all she needed to. Correcting Trump is an overwhelming practice, and you only have to do it so much to plant doubt, and she did that. Those who truly care about the facts will find the fact-checking later via whatever means. And the fact that she was the corrector gives her that mind space.
Or, another way that could have worked is to definitively correct Trump on select key points, and when fact checkers go to verify things like that (fact checkers check the facts regardless of who their coming from or how convincing they are), they'll find even more things wrong with what Trump said.
No, it's really not. As I said, a speech is more than pretty words thrown together. There's a deliberate structure to it, when to say what, what beats to hit and what not. Debate is much the same way, there's a pace to it, especially within a series. Trump is the perfect kind of opponent for defensive debating, because can't help but hang himself. Hillary playing defense for most of the first and second debate allowed herself to look calm and collected versus the raving Trump, and then for the final she went on the offensive it offset her aggressive nature because she was already seen as the calm and collected one versus Trump, who had created his image in the first two debates. Without that pace, the third debate would have been more humdrum, it would have lost its punch, because all three debates would have basically been the same narrative: Clinton on the intense offense, Trump on the collected defense.
Is it 100% perfect? No, what is, right? But looking at the three debates as a whole now, you can easily see the long con of it all. The problem is just isn't satisfying for those who wanted Clinton to just kick in the door, call Trump out on every lie, etc., but how she handled it was honestly pretty masterful overall, it just may not be satisfying to watch from the standpoint of those who want to see Trump roast.
I never argued what she did was an ineffective strategy, so you don't have to sell me on what her performance. I just don't see much reason to say that it wouldn't have been better if she had spaced the offensive more evenly within the defenses and acting presidential. Like, forget about it being a roast of Donald Trump. He had numerous, glaring weak points and she could have hit atleast a few of them to both discredit his argument, throw him off his game, and put an end to his misinformation, while still holding back on other points to still appear calm and collected to Trump's ranting and raving.
Also, I don't see it as a long con so much as Hillary's growing confidence with how she could handle Donald.
In the first debate, she prepared herself. I felt it was pretty clear she was nervous and unsure what kind of opponent she'll be facing with Donald. But as it went on, it was obvious that he was imploding and was self destructing, so she just hung back and defended herself while he wrecked himself. Then, before the second debate, the 2005 video tape came out. Rather than the energetic and confident donald we saw in the first one, now he seemed to be in a resigned 'Fuck it' mode. But he happened to get in a few zingers and attacks on her. She still won the debate and he still imploded, but he did manage to land a few hits in, and I think this upset her. So now in the third debate, she was determined to straighten his shit out once and for all, and we got the performance we got. Meanwhile, I'm not sure what kind of headspace Donald is in right now that he seemed calmer and politer this debate. Maybe he was just intimidated by Hillary being aggressive, maybe his campaign managers took his coke away, maybe even he feels an ounce of shame over his actions. Who knows. But Hillary was not gonna fuck around anymore.
That's my interpretation of it anyway. Less a plan and more like adjustments based on how she's interacting with Donald. She was untouchable the first debate, then he got a lucky hit in the second, and in the third, she was just done with this asshole and ready to kick his ass out of this race.
