{"id":107957,"date":"2016-09-27T12:23:10","date_gmt":"2016-09-27T20:23:10","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=107957"},"modified":"2016-09-27T12:23:10","modified_gmt":"2016-09-27T20:23:10","slug":"scott-adams-scores-the-debate","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=107957","title":{"rendered":"Scott Adams Scores The Debate"},"content":{"rendered":"

Scott Adams writes<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Clinton looked (to my eyes) as if she was drugged, tired, sick, or generally unhealthy, even though she was mentally alert and spoke well. But her eyes were telling a different story. She had the look of someone whose doctors had engineered 90 minutes of alertness for her just for the event. If she continues with a light campaign schedule, you should assume my observation is valid, and she wasn\u2019t at 100%.<\/p>\n

Some will say Clinton outperformed expectations because she didn\u2019t cough, collapse, or die right on stage. That would be true if she also looked healthy in general, and her campaign schedule from here on out is full. We\u2019ll know more this week, based on her schedule.<\/p>\n

Clinton\u2019s smile seemed forced, artificial, and frankly creepy. I\u2019m already hearing on Twitter that mentioning a woman\u2019s smile is sexist. I understand the point. But when someone goes full Joker-face and tests the uncanny valley hypothesis at the same time, that\u2019s a bit different from telling a woman to \u201csmile more.\u201d My neighbor Kristina hypothesized that Botox was making her smile look unnatural. Science tells us that when a person\u2019s mouth smiles, but their eyes don\u2019t match the smile, they look disingenuous if not creepy. Botox on your crow\u2019s feet lines around your eyes can give that effect. But whatever the reason, something looked off to me.<\/p>\n

To be fair, Trump\u2019s physical appearance won\u2019t win him any votes either. But his makeup looked better than I have seen it (no orange), his haircut was as good as it gets for him, and he was otherwise his normal self that some voters hate and some like. <\/p>\n

But the most interesting question has to do with what problem both of them were trying to solve with the debate. Clinton tried to look healthy, and as I mentioned, I don\u2019t think she completely succeeded. But Trump needed to solve exactly one problem: Look less scary. Trump needed to counter Clinton\u2019s successful branding of him as having a bad temperament to the point of being dangerous to the country. Trump accomplished exactly that\u2026by\u2026losing the debate.<\/p>\n

Trump was defensive, and debated poorly at points, but he did not look crazy. And pundits noticed that he intentionally avoided using his strongest attacks regarding Bill Clinton\u2019s scandals. In other words, he showed control. He stayed in the presidential zone under pressure. And in so doing, he solved for his only remaining problem. He looked safer.<\/p>\n

By tomorrow, no one will remember what either of them said during the debate. But we will remember how they made us feel. <\/p>\n

Clinton won the debate last night. And while she was doing it, Trump won the election. He had one thing to accomplish \u2013 being less scary \u2013 and he did it.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Scott Adams writes: Clinton looked (to my eyes) as if she was drugged, tired, sick, or generally unhealthy, even though she was mentally alert and spoke well. But her eyes were telling a different story. She had the look of … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21791],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-107957","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-america"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/107957","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=107957"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/107957\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":107958,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/107957\/revisions\/107958"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=107957"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=107957"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=107957"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}