HEMPSTEAD, N.Y. – After last night’s debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, the televised analysis session naturally featured professional commentators, prognosticators and political partisans making predictable statements—but there is another angle that should be discussed.
Instead of looking at the debate in terms of who won and lost, or whether or not either candidate landed decisive blows against the other, it may be more beneficial to take a side look at the candidates’ strategic intent and whether or not they achieved their objectives.
Clinton began by reciting her economic program, going down the path of advocating more government intervention in the economy in terms of changing pay scales, adding paid family leave, more child care and debt-free college. She would pay for this by again pledging to tax the rich, though there is no way all of these new programs can be sustained just from increasing the revenue from a small population segment.
Her goal in beginning with this set of policy objectives was to appeal to the female and middle class vote.
Trump opened with his attack on America’s free trade agreements and the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs to foreign countries. Attacking the NAFTA agreement as the worst of its kind in American history, which was also a backhanded slap at President Bill Clinton, Trump was attempting to pull in middle and working class voters in the critical Mid-Atlantic region where unemployment is the worst.
Trump repeatedly returned to this theme during the debate, attempting to attract votes from places where he must make Electoral College inroads, states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. He will likely need Ohio plus one of the other states in this group to clinch the national election. Hence, his focus is on the problems within this Midwest region.
Before the debate spiraled into distracting issues of President Obama’s birth certificate and more personal attacks between the two candidates, each took one more shot at shoring up support among targeted groups.
Clinton struck with the police issue to appeal to inner city voters, a subset where she is already strong but one in which she must increase enthusiasm and commitment to vote. Trump countered as the law-and-order candidate, an avert appeal to those in states where recent attacks have occurred.
Trump then returned to small business, attacking the Clinton plan of raising taxes and pledging to decrease excessive federal regulation. Clearly appealing to the business owners that form the Republican Party’s backbone, Trump also used the issue to again appeal to those in the Midwest who may be unemployed from an economically stagnant state.
Both candidates spoke to their specific constituents and very likely firmed the support they already have. In the remaining two debates, watch for more specific issues and group targeting in a bolder attempt to swing less committed voters to their side.
Jim Ellis is the publisher of the Ellis Insight publication, a service of Weber Merritt Public Affairs webermerritt.com.