This is from Roger Cohen:
A lot of Americans want change; Trump is the political upstart and Clinton the political establishment. Nothing that transpired in the debate will have altered the fact that millions of Americans want rupture not continuity, and they see in Trump the potential for a radical break from politics as usual.
This from Thomas Friedman:
I am not enamored of Clinton’s stale, liberal, centralized view of politics, but she is sane and responsible; she’ll do her homework, can grow in the job, and might even work well with Republicans, as she did as a senator.
Trump promises change, but change that comes from someone who thinks people who pay taxes are suckers and who thinks he can show up before an audience of 100 million without preparation or real plans and talk about serious issues with no more sophistication than your crazy uncle — and expect to get away with it — is change the country can’t afford.
Electing such a man would be insanity.
There is a narrative fed by the media that Americans are tired of the status quo and demand change. That runs through both these analyses. Hillary does not represent change, she represents the status quo. That is why there is no real enthusiasm with younger voters. There is a truth and there are a couple of problems with this analysis, but perception is critical. The truth is we need change and Hillary does represent the establishment Democratic Party that has been too willing to compromise the country further and further right. The lie is that the dysfunction is from politics as usual.
Actually, the dysfunction has nothing to do with politics as usual, but the new politics implemented by the Republicans of obstructionism. The Tea Party simply took this tactic and radicalized it. Americans in general have been mislead by our media into believing both sides do it, not because the media is evil, but because they confused partisanship with facts and created a false equivalency between the two parties for infotainment. If Hillary could implement her ideas, we actually would see real change. And as Tom pointed out, “she can grow in the job”. As things work, there will be acceleration.
But she hasn’t pushed change yet, only scratched the surface. She made a grand mistake in the debate last Monday when she did not own up to her statement of the TPP being the Gold Standard of trade agreements. It makes her look like both sides do it. She did make a rational point about trade agreements, but it was lost in the Trump attack. This was a great opportunity to start pushing change. She could have explained that the TPP is more than just a trade agreement, but a foreign policy instrument to balance Chinese incursion in the Pacific. While she made that Gold Standard statement before it was negotiated, now she sees how it favors economic inequality and it must be renegotiated in that light. She should not pander to the no trade agreements crowd, but take it head on.
Her way forward in the last month is to show, as she started to do in the debate, that Trump isn’t change at all. It is failed economics all over again, that they have been the problem, that her way is actually the new way forward, and if we want real change, it is a Republican Congress that has to be changed. That should be the talking points from now till the election. Donald has shown himself to unfit as a leader. You can ride that pony for about another week, and then go after Republican policy. That would make Hillary the change candidate. She has to show she will fight them and their obstructionism because it is that obstructionism that has made government dysfunctional.