Hilary Clinton Debate Analysis

Hillary Clinton uses the pathos rhetorical appeal more than the other two. When she says “ Isn’t he forgetting? Troops on the front lines. Police officers and firefighters who run towards danger.” (Farley, Robert). This shows pathos because she is appealing to the families of the people who risk their lives, and she cares about the people who work hard to make this country better. She also uses pathos when she says “I want you to know, I’ve heard you. your cause is our cause. Our country needs your ideas, energy, and passion.” (Clinton, Hillary). This uses this rhetorical appeal because it shows that she will take our ideas and what the people of the United States have to say and use them when she becomes president. She makes it seem like

Although there are many candidates in the presidential campaign of 2016, we citizens focus most on Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. They both make efforts to demonstrate ethos or credibility in their presidential bios. Furthermore, they both stress their reputations/expertise and authority to persuade the people that they are worthy to lead the nation. As Republican Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had stated in Hillary’s bio, she “ ran the State Department in the most effective way that I’ve ever seen.” From this feedback, she showed that she can work under the conditions of the government and still go over expectations. This is a valuable skill that is claimed useful for a president and in the end, she is capable

Clinton uses imagery again to help her audience imagine some of the hardships women around the world face. She describes some of the specific problems and difficulties women face when she says "At this very moment, as we sit here, women around the world are giving birth, raising children, cooking meals, washing clothes, cleaning houses, planting crops, working on assembly lines, running companies, and running countries..." Clinton uses this sentence to create an image of the variation of the duties that women perform around the world. Some women are successful enough to be able to run companies and countries, while others are stuck with only being able to perform basic duties, like washing clothes, cooking meals, giving birth, raising children, etc. Next she explains how women don't have equality by explaining some of the rights they are being denied, she states "They are being denied the right to go to school by their own fathers and brothers. They are being forced into prostitution and they are being barred from the bank lending offices and banned from the ballot boxes." She explains in detail some of the difficulties

I donnot agree that Trump stood out in this debate, he did not show the same strength and toughness than in previous debates. Trump seemed confident since he leads the national polls. That is why the mogul did not strike back at the attack of his opponents, he probably did not want to say anything that could damage his position of front-runner, and he just let his opponents fighting

Political communication is a message designed for a mass audience with the objective of making an audience sympathetic to your position. Most political communication is done through mass media, which presents a unique challenge: making extremely impersonal communication through a screen seem personal. Successful, effective political communication utilizes classic rhetorical techniques in order to identify with the audience at hand and present a position.

The second presidential debate demonstrates an indecisive clash between opposite personalities; the rehearsed demeanor of Hillary Clinton juxtaposes the raw audacity of Donald Trump. Despite their dissimilar appearance, the candidates employ like strategies – they deflect accusations and criticize their adversary. Clinton suffers to succeed in this format. Neither knowledge of policy nor experience in office effectively counter accusations against personal character. This observation is nonetheless irreverent. Although Trump dominates the debate format, he alienates the electorate.

In the first presidential debate, we can see that Hillary Clinton was the clear winner. She was very prepared and acted professional throughout the debate. She answered the questions thoroughly and in a manner that helped portray her political agenda. In this first debate, she began to give the viewers a sense of what it would be like with her in office. Unlike her opponent, Donald Trump, she did not speak out of turn and respected the moderator, Lester Holt.

In the beginning of the debate, both Trump and Clinton had a fierce attitude. The candidates had brought up many past events. They debated against each other`s plans to create a better country. One of the main

In my opinion, on the first 2016 Presidential Debate, Donald Trump and Secretary Hillary Clinton did have a fair debate about topics of the host’s, Lester Holt, choice. Hillary Clinton did, in fact, win. I think this for many reason but some in particular stand out to me.

After watching thirty minutes of both the Republican debate and the Democrat debate it is very evident the differences between the political parties. The Republican race is very different from the democratic debate because of the level of competition. After only a brief time in watching both races it is evident who the moderators feel are front runners in this year's election. The Republican debate was very competitive because of the larger amount of people running. Each candidate did not have enough time to fully debate topics because of there are just too many people up at the podium. Some of the Republican candidates make it priority to follows Reagan's rule of talking about the fellow candidates but, others such as Bush and Trump try

It may be ridiculous to say that in a two-candidate debate, both candidates are winners; however, the two candidates' goals were totally different. Sanders needed to demonstrate that he could fully meld his racial justice message into his economic ideas and become the candidate of the progressive movement as a whole. Doing this was important not just to his 2016 candidacy, but to his future as an idol for progressivism. Clinton, meanwhile, is the increasingly popular favorite for the nomination. The delegates and superdelegates simply favor her tremendously. So the most important thing she could do in tonight's debate against Bernie Sanders was avoid saying anything so tremendously, horrendously stupid that she would sabotage her success. Instead,

The debate was deluged with policies and issues. Even though candidates probably had a plethora of issues they wanted to address, the time limit, and the debate format stood like a glorified barrier. The issue was raised on how to create jobs to minimize the unemployment rate. The other issue raised was regarding taxes. Issue was raised regarding which tax policy would turn out to be most cohesive and profitable with time. Issue about current race relation was raised along with the ways to improve it. Another issue that was raised was regarding national security. Personally, I think that issue regarding tax stood out in the debate.

It was a cool autumn day as the sun set on the horizon of Las Vegas, Nevada. That night the Democratic National Committee and CNN would host the first of a series of Democratic debates in the race for 2016 Presidential Race. Congress being out of session for the next few days, Senator Jay Whitman had just arrived at the airport and planned on heading straight to the debate to see what the future of the Democratic Party would bring to America. Being already, obviously, thoroughly versed in politics himself he was exhilarated to heard the candidates debate the issues that mattered to him and the people of Nevada her represented. Once he had arrived at the event, he found his way though security and into the auditorium. The debate started roughly

Disappointment, this is how I would describe this year's presidential debate. In truth, this is my first year participating, and my expectations were relatively high. I was expecting two professionals to duel it out in a proper fashion with minimal fallacies, all in an attempt to persuade the hundreds of thousands of people and me watching. Unfortunately, and excuse my language, I witnessed a shit show. Let me first address some questions: Was the debate fair for both parties? No, the moderator asked questions which personally attacked both candidates and were irrelevant to the policy topics initially asked. Were the questions pertinent? No, as I previously noted, the moderator asked about past allegations. Moreover, as we were not placing

There is no way you have been able to watch these debates without responding to the TV as if the candidates could hear your opinion. The candidates represent two polar opposite views on issues like women's rights, immigration, healthcare, education and taxes, and you undoubtedly have some opinion on it. As a voter, you will be sharing your opinion on questions like: Who should be getting tax breaks? Should the government help fund education? Should illegal immigrants be allowed to stay in the United States to continue their education? Your opinion must be heard. As a minor, I can advocate for