The visuals at the debate

Joe Bob Briggs has an excellent encapsulation of the visual impressions left by the two candidates at Taki’s Magazine:

The great thing about watching a Presidential debate with a split screen is that you get to watch the face that’s not speaking and you get to see what’s underneath the words.

And what did these two faces say?

Trump’s face, pinched, orange, topped by what can only be called a wispy ghost of a crewcut, was saying, “I can’t stand the sound of your voice. You’re annoying me. You’re a nothing.”

And Hillary’s face, coiffed, pancaked, accessorized, was saying, “I’m going to smile sarcastically, even if I hate him, so the crowd will think I don’t care.”

In other words, Trump was genuine and spontaneous, while Hillary was controlled and phony.

Pundits are wordsmiths, so they overvalue the role of words in reaching voters.  The visual impressions can count for more than the words if nothing in particular stands out as an immortal moment on the order of “You’re no Jack Kennedy.”

I have to compliment Hillary’s makeup and wardrobe staff.  She was very well turned out, and she did not fade toward the end.  If anyone did, it was Trump.

Conservatives learned the hard way with Romney that likability is a huge issue when voters make their choices.  On that standard, Hillary did poorly, I think.

Joe Bob Briggs has an excellent encapsulation of the visual impressions left by the two candidates at Taki’s Magazine:

The great thing about watching a Presidential debate with a split screen is that you get to watch the face that’s not speaking and you get to see what’s underneath the words.

And what did these two faces say?

Trump’s face, pinched, orange, topped by what can only be called a wispy ghost of a crewcut, was saying, “I can’t stand the sound of your voice. You’re annoying me. You’re a nothing.”

And Hillary’s face, coiffed, pancaked, accessorized, was saying, “I’m going to smile sarcastically, even if I hate him, so the crowd will think I don’t care.”

In other words, Trump was genuine and spontaneous, while Hillary was controlled and phony.

Pundits are wordsmiths, so they overvalue the role of words in reaching voters.  The visual impressions can count for more than the words if nothing in particular stands out as an immortal moment on the order of “You’re no Jack Kennedy.”

I have to compliment Hillary’s makeup and wardrobe staff.  She was very well turned out, and she did not fade toward the end.  If anyone did, it was Trump.

Conservatives learned the hard way with Romney that likability is a huge issue when voters make their choices.  On that standard, Hillary did poorly, I think.