As I sit here this rainy morning in the Cornfield parsing through the stalks, the shucks and husks on harvested fields, I reflect on last night’s third and final Presidential Debate.
Did either Republican Donald Trump or Democrat Hillary Clinton add to their total of votes to be cast for them to be President of the United States?
I do not believe so.
Did either solidify their base?
Yes, both did.
Were the 8-10% of undecided voters swayed one way or the other?
To me that looks like for the third time in a row, the debate outcome was a draw.
Yes, I know the pundits and the CNN/ORC poll (which is skewed Democratic) gave the win to Clinton. Based on performance, I can see this. But I look at whether minds were changed – not how the candidate met the norms of debate.
I also realize that focus groups of undecided voters seemed to buck the pundits and favor Trump. In the CNN group, 10 undecided said they were more likely to vote for Trump versus half that number, five, who said Clinton was more to their liking.
But the proof as they say is in the pudding. That taste will not come until November 8.
The change in the polls since the last debate has not been because of how Clinton or Trump did in facing off, but rather events that have occurred in between debates – the emails being published by Wikileaks, the Access Hollywood video, the women accusers.
Then there is what is making headlines this morning.
It is not that the candidates actually were substantive for a change talking the issues. Rather the conversation is that Trump did not say he will accept the result of the election.
Social media is going off over Trump calling Clinton a “nasty woman.” Social media is also ablaze and incensed over the term, “bad hombres.”
From the Cornfield, Americans last chance to see the two major presidential wannabes go head-to-head, toe-to-toe and neither side won the voters that matter – undecideds.