Third Debate - 2016: Probably a Draw

The third presidential debate for 2016 just ended.  I watched the whole thing.  Here are my impressions:

1.  Chris Wallace was a substantially better moderator than the previous moderators in the first two debates.  He asked questions of Hillary that the prior moderators stayed away from, e.g., her using the Clinton Foundation for "pay for play" corruption.  Hillary slithered away from answering.

2.  Hillary was much better on specifics in some cases.  Her ability to quote names and places made her look informed and prepared, especially to people who don't have a clue.  Some of what she quoted was undoubtedly lies.  Hillary was the better speaker, and her responses were crisp and well enunciated.  Donald was far less scripted and more spontaneous, but also less polished.

3.  Both candidates were vague and nonspecific on economics questions, merely making unprovable claims of the wonders they will manifest when president.  Hillary's claims, however, were less credible, in my opinion.  She stressed government action to improve the economy, where Donald stressed using the private sector and growing the economic pie through lower taxes and less regulation.

4.  Trump was effective in bringing up Clinton campaign malfeasance in attempting to stoke violence at Trump rallies.  He also did a good job of answering the bimbo claims that he groped them.  He denied it, and said the claims have been debunked.

5.  Both candidates fell back on prior claims made in the two previous debates.

6.  It is doubtful that the debate changed many minds.

I noticed that most of the online comments by viewers were highly negative for Hillary, but that may be because I was watching the debate via the Fox News website.

Conclusions: the debate was a draw.  On to November 8!  Vote Trump.