Who Won the Debate?

NOTE: This column is copyrighted material; therefore reproduction or retransmission is prohibited under U.S. copyright laws.

You won’t see us answer the question, Who Won the Debate? It’s like the general farm media writing about the “winners and losers” just a nanosecond after a new farm bill clears Congress. Who do you think we are, Politico?

For example, you think dairy producers were winners in the farm bill debate because they finally got their Margin Protection Program (MPP)? They are now seeking some “tweaks” to that program.

You think cotton producers won relative to their pushed STAX program? Far from it. If anyone won on that it was Brazil.

Some corn and soybean lobbyists thought they won with their big push for the Ag Risk Coverage (ARC) program. Producers now are complaining about the complexity of the program and that it is unfair for one county to get near or maximum payouts and an adjoining county little or no payouts.

Let’s turn to the presidential debate Monday evening. We came in with low expectations and that is exactly what was delivered.

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton made a few more points, debate wise, than her GOP presidential challenger, Donald Trump. Political pundits quickly pointed that out. But if this election is what the polls and thus voters have been saying, and election “experts” have been getting so wrong, it is that many voters want no more status quo and instead someone not from Washington… even Trump… to shake this town up about as much as a good ole Milk Shake of the 1950s and 1960s (one of us remembers the first, the other the second…).

Recall that President Barack Obama had a far worse first debate against Mitt Romney, and we all know how that turned out. It’s like corn market bulls who keep saying USDA is wrong on the size of the crop and keep looking ahead to the next Crop Production report, only to have USDA go above pre-report expectations (We won’t even get into the “monster” soybean crop.) And when the October estimate comes out, the bulls will likely say not much corn had been harvested when the survey was taken, so it will take until the November report or even the Annual Summary to truly reflect the size of the crop. Deniers? We have them in agriculture as well as in the political arena.

Some of you who emailed us or we spoke with did not think NBC’s Lester Holt did a very good job at moderating the debate – we won’t use some of the colorful language some used. Like the candidates, he scored some points, and missed some others – especially in his failure to ask Clinton follow-up questions regarding her email “situation” or even to bring up the public comments the director of the FBI made about her during an open congressional hearing. Why Trump did not focus on some of Clinton’s “ethical problems” surprised long-time Trump supporters. But there are two more debates.

What caught our attention. Despite the incessant sounds Trump made with his lip/mouth/nose at the start of the debate (we call them Truffles), the most interesting lines we found in the debate, which not one pundit commented on, is this exchange between Holt and Clinton:

HOLT: “Secretary Clinton, last week, you said we’ve got to do everything possible to improve policing, to go right at implicit bias. Do you believe that police are implicitly biased against black people?”

CLINTON: “Lester, I think implicit bias is a problem for everyone, not just police. I think, unfortunately, too many of us in our great country jump to conclusions about each other. And therefore, I think we need all of us to be asking hard questions about, you know, why am I feeling this way?”

Is she saying EVERYone in the country is biased? While there are more than few who are (and not just biased when it comes to race), to flat-out say “implicit bias is a problem for everyone, not just police,” is something that should be pursued either by the press if they can interview her, or in the next debate in St. Louis.

Bottom-line comments. The debate as expected showed stark contrasts with sharp attacks between the candidates with the 90-minute session devolving into an exchange of accusations and blame regarding their past statements and records. The frequent comment cited in most post-debate commentary was that Clinton won more points vs GOP challenger Donald Trump, who some say, ironically, was not aggressive enough in going after some of Clinton’s vulnerabilities like her email and ethics issues.

Are markets talking? A frequent line this morning was that some markets are also signaling a Clinton first debate “win,” as Asia equities went from some declines to gains during the debate, and the higher Mexican peso, which has been highly sensitive to the US election following comments from GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump regarding plans to build a wall between the two countries.

Traders tend to see Clinton as the candidate of the status quo, while few are sure what a Trump presidency might mean for US foreign policy, international trade deals or the domestic economy.

Watch polls the next few weeks. In a few days, post-debate polls (of voters, not pundits) may show whether or not Trump’s recent momentum has been clipped if not reversed. Trump supporters say the race will still come down to the status quo (Clinton) versus the need for a major change in Washington (Trump) and that the pundits have consistently been wrong in their prior prognostications.

The next debate between the two nominees will be October 9, in a town-hall-style format in St. Louis, Missouri.

NOTE: This column is copyrighted material; therefore reproduction or retransmission is prohibited under U.S. copyright laws.