Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.
Presidential debate at Washington University (October 9, 2016)
Ballotpedia's scope changes periodically, and this article type is no longer actively created or maintained. If you would like to help our coverage grow, consider donating to Ballotpedia.
| 2016 general election debates |
|---|
| Read more about Presidential debates (2015-2016): •Presidential debate prep teams, 2016 •Commission on Presidential Debates •Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 •Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 |
This article focuses exclusively on the second presidential debate of the 2016 general election season at Washington University on October 9, 2016. Click here to access Ballotpedia's full 2015-2016 presidential debate coverage.
- See also: Presidential debates: September 26, October 4, and October 19.
The second presidential debate of the general election season took place on October 9, 2016, at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri. The debate took place less than one month before the general election.
What was at stake?
Democrat Hillary Clinton experienced a considerable bump in national and state polls following the first debate on September 26, 2016. On the day of the debate, Real Clear Politics' national polling average had Clinton at less than 2 percentage points above her Republican rival Donald Trump, 43.1 to 41.5, in a four-way race including Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson and Green Party candidate Jill Stein. By October 5, 2016, her lead had grown to almost four points. On top of this, she padded leads in key battleground states like Colorado, Pennsylvania, and Virginia and actually took the lead—as of October 5—in Florida, where Trump had led in the days leading up to the debate.
Clinton's goal was therefore to maintain or increase her lead in the polls, while Trump's goals were to halt Clinton's momentum and turn the tide in his favor.
What happened at the first debate?
The first presidential debate took place on September 26, 2016, in New York. Ballotpedia surveyed more than 150 Democratic and Republican strategists, pollsters, media consultants, activists, lobbyists, and allied interest group operatives, after the conclusion of the September 26 debate and found that an overwhelming majority of Democratic Insiders and a plurality of Republicans thought that Clinton emerged as the victor in her showdown with Trump. Overall, almost two-thirds of the Insiders thought Clinton carried the evening.
More than 80 million people tuned in to the first debate, a record in the history of presidential debates. In the past, viewership of second debates has come close to or even exceeded the viewership of first debates. In 2008, 52.4 million watched the first debate between John McCain (R) and Barack Obama (D), but 63.2 million watched the second.[1] In 2012, 67.2 million watched the first debate between Mitt Romney (R) and Obama, while 65.6 million watched the second.[2]
Basic Information
Date: October 9, 2016
Time: 9:00 pm Eastern Time
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
Venue: Washington University
Moderator: Martha Raddatz and Anderson Cooper
Candidates: Hillary Clinton (D); Donald Trump (R)
Format
The debate followed a town hall format with members of the audience asking half of the questions and the moderators asking the other half. Candidates had two minutes to answer questions. The moderators could add an additional minute to "facilitate further discussion."[3]
Participants
On October 4, 2016, the Commission on Presidential Debates—a nonpartisan 501(c)(3) organization that oversees general election debates—announced that it had invited Hillary Clinton (D) and Donald Trump (R) to the second presidential debate. Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson and Green Party candidate Jill Stein were not invited because they did not meet the 15 percent polling average threshold required by the CPD. In a statement, the CPD said that its board of directors had "determined that the polling averages called for in the third criterion are as follows: Hillary Clinton (44.8%), Donald Trump (40.8%), Gary Johnson (7.4%) and Jill Stein (2.6%). Accordingly, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump qualify to participate in the October 9 debate. No other candidates satisfied the criteria for inclusion in the October 9. The criteria will be reapplied to all candidates in advance of the third presidential debate."[4] Learn more about the CPD's criteria for inclusion in the debates below.
How did the commission decide who got to participate in the debate?
According to the CPD website, the organization used criteria that seeks to identify candidates "whose public support has made them the leading candidates." The CPD outlined its inclusion criteria on its website:[5]
| Debate qualification criteria[5] |
|---|
|
The choice of a 15 percent threshold, according to the CPD, was based on studies that determined that such a threshold allowed for other candidates that had enough "public support" to retain the purpose of the debates—that is, "voter education." The CPD, based on their own analysis, said that 15 percent is an achievable percentage for third-party candidates.[5] The five polls were chosen by Dr. Frank Newport, editor-in-chief of Gallup, who considerd the methodology, sampling size, and frequency of the polls as well as the reputation of the polling institution. The polls used in 2012 were ABC News/The Washington Post, NBC News/The Wall Street Journal, CBS News/The New York Times, Fox News, and Gallup.[5]
Polls
On August 15, 2016, the CPD released the five polls that it used to determine which candidates could participate in the debate.[6] Candidates needed to have an average of at least 15 percent in the following polls to participate in the debate:
- ABC-Washington Post
- CBS-New York Times
- CNN-Opinion Research Corporation
- Fox News
- NBC-Wall Street Journal
The CPD based its selection of polls on the following criteria, according to its August 15 press release:
| “ |
|
” |
Statistics
This article analyzes the central themes of the second general election presidential debate held on October 9, 2016, at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri. The transcript prepared by The Washington Post was used to measure candidate participation and audience engagement.[8] Footage from the debate was consulted where there were ambiguities in the text.
For comparison, see the analyses of the first general election debate and the final Democratic primary and Republican primary debates held in April 2016 and March 2016, respectively.
Participants
 Hillary Clinton (D) |
 Donald Trump (R) | |||
Segments
This debate featured 17 unique discussion segments covering presidential behavior and fitness, domestic affairs, and national security. There were no opening or closing statements. These discussion segments were measured by any question from an audience member or shift in the theme of a discussion prompted by the moderators, Anderson Cooper and Martha Raddatz.
- Appropriate presidential behavior
- The 2005 Trump tape
- Trump's temperament
- Clinton's private email server
- Healthcare
- Islamophobia
- Muslim immigration ban
- Public vs. private policy positions
- Taxes and the wealthy
- Trump's tax returns
- Humanitarian crisis in Syria
- Assad regime in Syria
- Being "devoted to all" Americans as president
- Discipline and leadership
- Supreme Court
- Energy policy and fossil fuels
- Positive traits of opponent
One-sixth of the debate's discussion segments were related to foreign affairs or national security. Four countries were mentioned more than five times: Iran, Iraq, Russia, and Syria.
Several political leaders and high-profile individuals were also named more than once in the debate by the candidates. President Barack Obama and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad were the most frequently mentioned.
Candidate participation by speaking time
According to Politico, Trump spoke for 39.1 minutes and Clinton spoke for 38.5 minutes.[9] Trump also spoke at a quicker rate than Clinton, saying approximately 1,000 more words than her throughout the night.
Audience engagement
Audience engagement was measured by noting applause, cheering, and laughter in The Washington Post's transcript. Footage from the debate was consulted when the text was ambiguous about to whom the audience was responding.
Although the audience was instructed to remain silent throughout the debate, they audibly applauded or laughed in response to the candidates seven times throughout the event. This was half the audience engagement seen in the first presidential debate moderated by Lester Holt. Both Cooper and Raddatz admonished the audience during the discussion segment on whether Trump's temperament had changed. Raddatz said that "the audience needs to calm down here." Shortly after, Cooper said, "We want to remind the audience to please not talk out loud. Please do not applaud. You're just wasting time."
Overall, Trump received more positives instances of audience engagement than Clinton, six to one.
Comments and exchanges receiving an audience response
- Trump: But what President Clinton did, he was impeached, he lost his license to practice law. He had to pay an $850,000 fine to one of the women. Paula Jones, who's also here tonight. And I will tell you that when Hillary brings up a point like that and she talks about words that I said 11 years ago, I think it's disgraceful, and I think she should be ashamed of herself, if you want to know the truth.
- Clinton: Well, first, let me start by saying that so much of what he's just said is not right, but he gets to run his campaign any way he chooses. He gets to decide what he wants to talk about. Instead of answering people's questions, talking about our agenda, laying out the plans that we have that we think can make a better life and a better country, that's his choice. When I hear something like that, I am reminded of what my friend, Michelle Obama, advised us all: When they go low, you go high.
- Trump: So we're going to get a special prosecutor, and we're going to look into it, because you know what? People have been—their lives have been destroyed for doing one-fifth of what you've done. And it's a disgrace. And honestly, you ought to be ashamed of yourself.
Raddatz: Secretary Clinton, I want to follow up on that. I'm going to let you talk about e-mails.
Clinton: ...because everything he just said is absolutely false, but I'm not surprised.
Trump: Oh, really?
- Clinton: So, once again, go to HillaryClinton.com. We have literally Trump—you can fact check him in real time. Last time at the first debate, we had millions of people fact checking, so I expect we'll have millions more fact checking, because, you know, it is—it's just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country.
Trump: Because you'd be in jail.
- Cooper: That first one goes to Secretary Clinton, because you started out the last one to the audience.
Clinton: If he wants to start, he can start. No, go ahead, Donald.
Trump: No, I'm a gentleman, Hillary. Go ahead.
- Trump: Well, I think I should respond, because—so ridiculous. Look, now she's blaming—she got caught in a total lie. Her papers went out to all her friends at the banks, Goldman Sachs and everybody else, and she said things—WikiLeaks that just came out. And she lied. Now she's blaming the lie on the late, great Abraham Lincoln. That's one that I haven't...
- Cooper: Secretary Clinton, does Mr. Trump have the discipline to be a good leader?
Clinton: No.
Trump: I'm shocked to hear that.
Candidate analysis
|
|
Insiders Poll
Did Trump stop the bleeding?
October 10, 2016
By James A. Barnes
Engulfed in a political firestorm over an 11-year-old conversation where he said he could grope women because he was a celebrity, Donald Trump nonetheless managed to rally Republican Insiders in his second presidential debate with Hillary Clinton.
Ballotpedia surveyed more than 150 Democratic and Republican strategists, pollsters, media consultants, activists, lobbyists, and allied interest group operatives, after the conclusion of the October 9 debate and found that an overwhelming majority of Democratic Insiders thought Clinton had a good night. At the same time, a majority Republicans thought Trump did also.
Among the 79 Democratic Insiders who responded, a whopping 86 percent declared Clinton the “biggest winner” of the night. Another 13 percent called the debate a draw, and one percent (one Democratic Insider) said that Trump had captured the evening. This is very consistent with how they viewed the outcome of the first face-off between Clinton and Trump.
But the 80 Republican Insiders had a different view: Almost two-thirds, 63 percent, thought Trump got the better of Clinton in the clash on Sunday night at Washington University in St. Louis. In the first debate, only 32 percent of the GOP Insiders thought Trump was the biggest winner and a plurality, 38 percent, actually gave the edge to Clinton. Last night 19 percent of the Republicans thought the debate was a draw and another 19 percent thought Clinton won.
Republicans who said Trump was the “biggest winner” last night did so with a range of feelings about their presidential standard bearer—many of them, not altogether positive. In a way, that reflects the bind the GOP establishment is in: If they had their druthers, many GOP Insiders would no doubt wish Trump wasn’t leading their party right now. At the same time, they’re realists and understand that he’s unlikely to step down, and for all practical purposes, can’t be removed from the top of the ticket by the Republican National Committee. That kind of coup would enrage a lot of Trump loyalists and be a logistical and legal nightmare for the GOP to get any change in their ticket effectively translated onto ballot lines in 50 states.
After a horrible run of negative news coverage capped by the disclosure of a tape of an decade-old exchange with then-Access Hollywood television host Billy Bush on a bus in which Trump casually boasted about how he could get away with groping women, but assumed his comments were not being recorded—many Republican operatives were simply impressed he was able to get through a presidential debate without imploding and actually landed a few punches on his Democratic opponent.
“He is still alive and kicking,” said one GOP Insider. “That’s a win after everything that has happened [lately].” Echoed another, “He stopped the bleeding and landed some big punches tonight. He lives to fight on.” And a third observed, “Trump survived the bus tape, and then made a case for change. He vastly exceeded expectations.”
At the time, many Republicans acknowledged that the broadsides he unleashed in the debate—and his potential strategy going forward—were far from uplifting. “He wants to reduce last 30 days [of the campaign] to a pile of rubble and emerge the winner,” calculated one Republican Insider. “He moved the election in his direction last night.” Another opined: “He has one Clintonesque quality—shamelessness: At his best when at his lowest.” And a third Republican Insider noted, “History will wonder how we possibly thought Trump won a debate, but occasionally an oafish boor is effective.” This survey was conducted anonymously to encourage candor from the Insiders.
Many Republican Insiders expected Clinton would have been prepared for such attacks, which at times, seemed to leave her flummoxed for an effective response. “With nothing left to lose he unleashed on his opponent who, apparently, thought tonight was going to be a layup,” said one GOP Insider. Another echoed, “HRC assumed he was dead.” A third Republican operative observed: “She was scrambling with platitudes all night. Shocking rebound by him. Had no idea he was capable of it.”
Another group of Republicans attributed Trump’s survival to Clinton’s own shortcomings and vulnerability. “How could she blow this?” wondered a GOP Insider. “She continues to be unable to put him away,” echoed another. “That fact alone makes him the winner. [He] should have been devastated, but instead he is still standing.” And a third confessed, “Frankly, I'd written him off after [the bus tape] comments, but he’s not dead. Shows what a poor candidate she is… People will literally consider anything over her and her record.”
Other Republicans saw promise—but still some opportunities missed—with Trump’s attack on Clinton as a typical politician who has been around Washington too long. “Stopped his bleeding and painted her as an establishment poster child,” assessed one Republican Insider. “Trump fearlessly exposed Clinton for the fraud that is her entire career: ‘30 years of talk’ is a slogan that would have won this thing in a normal year,” declared another. And a third averred, “Landed brutal blows, and her answers rang false. Would have been perfect if he would stop running at the mouth.”
Still, almost one-fifth of the Republicans thought that Clinton won the slugfest in St. Louis and were not impressed by Trump or his debate tactics.
"The moment he opened his mouth, he was losing,” maintained one Republican Insider. So many (legitimate) opportunities to attack her and he misfired on every one.” Another moaned, “Trump takes bait and doesn’t adequately prepare. He could do so much better despite all his flaws.” A third Republican sighed: “HRC is such a bad candidate and so vulnerable, but DJT needs more discipline to actually land a punch. He flailed around a lot but if he can’t stay on an issue he’ll never corner her.”
One Republican joked: “Donald has a future role as a spokesman for Viagra, because he’s the most politically impotent candidate I’ve ever encountered.” Another mused, “Trump needs to stop winning the who-talked-more metric if he wants to win moderates or undecided: The more he talks, the less appealing he is.” But another simply lamented, “Trump is a disgrace.”
And one GOP Insider shrewdly observed, “Trump won the debate, but Hillary was the ‘biggest winner,’ because Trump can stay in the race now.”
Democratic Insiders were nearly unanimous in declaring the Clinton the victor on Sunday night. One way or another, most Democrats attributed her success to Trump’s over-the-top debate tactics and his failure to broaden his appeal beyond his loyal fans in the Republican Party.
“Trump did nothing to expand his base of support,” judged one Democratic Insider. “He double-downed on his campaign strategy and showed little remorse for disrespecting a large faction of the electorate. Clinton did little to change minds as well, but she came out on top of Trump in this round.” Another declared, “He did nothing to move college educated women or Hispanics, so by default, she wins.” And a third assessed the debate this way: “Trump needed to somehow appeal to moderates or undecideds and he did neither—played to the base at every opportunity. [He] covered the bullet wound if the lewd sex tape with a Band-Aid; won’t be enough.”
For many Democrats, Clinton won for maintaining her poise under Trump’s verbal barrage. “She continued to show steadiness while he was angry and still can’t articulate policy answers,” said one Democratic Insider. “She gets credit for fixing her face in the expression we all use when dealing with the profoundly stupid,” jabbed another. “Despite Trump’s physical and verbal attempts to intimidate her, she kept her cool and looked presidential,” declared a third Democrat. [During the debate Trump appeared to hover near Clinton on the television screen, but both candidates were pacing the debate stage, occasionally at the same time.]
But a few Democrats acknowledged that Clinton’s equanimity and play-it-safe tactics prevented her from pushing back more forcefully on Trump’s attacks during the debate. One Democratic Insider observed, “Hillary was very careful and missed some opportunities, but she did not want to step on the story of the campaign—Donald Trump and his moral lapses.” Another noted, “Mrs. Clinton made no huge errors though was sometimes on the defensive on topics such as emails and her speeches.” And a third said simply, “She got out of Donald’s way.”
Several Democrats were dismayed by the tone of the debate set by Trump. “It’s a shame such a smart woman had to take part in this ludicrous spectacle,” chided one Democratic Insider. “Trump sets a sub-gutter standard for political discourse,” admonished another.
And some Democrats predicted the fallout from debate would not be kind to Trump or the Republican establishment. “He didn’t implode but that does not count as a win,” maintained one Democratic Insider. “The next days will not be kind to him in replay.” Another Democrat presciently observed that Trump’s performance “assured that [House Speaker Paul] Ryan and GOP leaders will be forced to back [Trump] or face punishment from the base.” On Monday morning, Ryan was caught some blowback on a conference call with his fellow House Republicans when he told them he would no longer defend Trump’s candidacy and they should campaign accordingly for what works best in their home districts. Some conservative GOP Members of Congress were angered by what they saw as Ryan’s willingness to abandon Trump.
A handful of Democrats saw the debate as a draw and the impact of that result was unclear. One Democrat thought that meant Trump won: “He keeps making mistakes and is still within four [points in earlier polls].” But another declared the presidential race “is over,” and asked cagily, “Did Trump help or hurt down-ballot Republicans tonight? If they stick with him now, maybe they'll regret it.”
One Democrat summed up the Sunday face-off this way: “He was in absolute free fall and he went on the attack, his comfort zone. She needed to get through it without any major misstep, and she did. Neither gained or lost their core as a result of this debate.”
About one-fifth of the Republicans also saw the debate as a draw, perhaps helping Trump in the short term, but not in the long run. “Trump stopped the bleeding, but didn’t expand his vote: bad news if you're behind,” said one GOP Insider. Added another, “It felt as though Trump stopped the bleeding to a certain extent, but that may not be enough to turn the page.”
James A. Barnes is a senior writer for Ballotpedia and co-author of the 2016 edition of the Almanac of American Politics.
Commentary
The columns below were authored by guest columnists and members of Ballotpedia's senior writing staff. The opinions and views belong to the authors.
More a sideshow than a real debate
October 10, 2016
By Karlyn Bowman
Karlyn Bowman, a widely respected analyst of public opinion, is a senior fellow and research coordinator at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C.
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump didn’t shake hands as they walked on University of Washington stage in St. Louis for their second presidential debate and managed a less than heartfelt one at the end. They did manage to say something nice about each other at the end, though his praise of her tenacity seemed more genuine than her comments about his children.
So went another debate in what has been a less than edifying campaign season. I’m guessing that I am like most Americans in that I am eager for it all to end. I wonder if the town hall audience that seemed like a sideshow to the moderators felt the same way.
Trump didn’t seem to do more damage to his campaign although that is a low bar. Clinton didn’t enhance her appeal. Both have serious weaknesses and they were visible once again last night. What we heard about Obamacare and Syria reminded us that their are important differences between the candidates and the parties about what America’s future should be. But those competing visions probably got lost in the barrage of insults and ad hominem attacks.
Trump: a one-man wrecking ball
October 10, 2016
By James A. Barnes
James A. Barnes is a senior writer for Ballotpedia and co-author of the 2016 edition of the Almanac of American Politics.
There hasn’t been a presidential debate like the one that took place on Sunday night. Donald Trump decided to become a one-man wrecking ball on the debate stage at Washington University in St. Louis.
Trump swung away at his rival, Hillary Clinton, and her husband in deflecting his own crude remarks about women from an informal exchange that were captured on tape 11 years ago: “Bill Clinton is abusive to women. Hillary Clinton attacked those same women, and attacked them viciously, four of them here tonight.”
If elected, Trump vowed to pursue Clinton with the full force of the Department of Justice over her email scandal: “I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation. Because there has never been so many lies, so much deception.”
He accused his Democratic opponent of despoiling the country and having animus in her heart: “We have a divided nation, because people like her—and believe me, she has tremendous hate in her heart.”
Trump swung and rebuffed his own running mate, Mike Pence, who suggested in the vice presidential debate less than a week ago that the U.S. should be prepared to strike the military assets of the Assad regime in Syria: “He and I haven’t spoken, and I disagree.”
As one Republican operative described Trump’s strategy in a Ballotpedia survey of political insiders after the debate: “He wants to reduce last 30 days [of the campaign] to a pile of rubble and emerge the winner.”
It won’t help you lead should you actually get elected. Constitutional experts can debate legality and ethics of a president targeting a defeated political rival for criminal prosecution, which would be unprecedented in U.S. history. But it surely would be a recipe for disaster from a governing perspective.
Many Trump supporters are rightly indignant over Clinton calling half of them “deplorable.” So how are Clinton’s numerous supporters supposed to react when Trump says she’d be behind bars if he were in the White House? The chant of “lock her up” at Trump rallies is an amusing taunt, but a president needs to focus on leading the nation, not leading what many would see as a political witch hunt during his critical early days in office. That would be a huge distraction and a sure way to embitter every Democrat in Congress.
At times, the brute force of Trump’s verbal attacks seemed to throw Clinton off balance. When Trump charged, “there’s never been anybody in the history of politics in this nation that has been so abusive to women” as Bill Clinton, and added, “when Hillary brings up a point like that and she talks about words that I said 11 years ago, I think it's disgraceful and I think she should be ashamed of herself, if you want to know the truth.” Clinton’s immediate response was measured and somewhat detached: “Well, first let me start by saying that so much of what he just said is not right, but he gets to run his campaign any way he chooses.” She then invoked First Lady Michelle Obama’s advice, “When they go low, you go high,” and then pivoted to demanding an apology from Trump for his attacks on others during the campaign.
Clinton may have been following the old adage about not letting your opponents drag you in the gutter where they can defeat you with their experience, but it was still striking that she didn’t seek some kind of apology for herself or her family or rebuke Trump more passionately for dredging up her husband’s past infidelities.
Seizing the offensive meant that at least Trump held the initiative during long stretches of the debate, something he was unable to do during his first encounter with Clinton on September 26 at Hofstra University in New York. That cheered many Republicans in the Ballotpedia survey, but some wondered about it’s overall effect on the course of the campaign. “Trump stopped the bleeding, but didn’t expand his vote: bad news if you're behind,” said one GOP Insider. Another echoed, “It felt as though Trump stopped the bleeding to a certain extent, but that may not be enough to turn the page.”
We’ll know for sure in four weeks.
See also
- Presidential debates (2015-2016)
- Commission on Presidential Debates
- Presidential debate prep teams, 2016
- Presidential candidates, 2016
- Presidential election, 2016/Polls
Footnotes
- ↑ Commission on Presidential Debates, "2008 Debates," accessed October 5, 2016
- ↑ Commission on Presidential Debates, "2012 Debates," accessed October 5, 2016
- ↑ Commission on Presidential Debates, "Commission on Presidential Debates Announces Format for 2016 General Election Debates," July 7, 2016
- ↑ Commission on Presidential Debates, "CPD Invites Hillary Clinton and Donald J. Trump to Debate," October 4, 2016
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 CPD, "An Overview," accessed August 26, 2015
- ↑ Commission on Presidential Debates, "Commission on Presidential Debates Announces Polls to be used in 2016 Candidate Selection Criteria," August 15, 2016
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ The Washington Post, "Everything that was said at the second Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton debate, highlighted," October 9, 2016
- ↑ Politico, "Speaking time near even in second presidential debate," October 10, 2016
