Looking forward to this. Select Trump, and arrest the Leftist decline; choose Clinton, and get a more competent version of Obama. The real question is strategy. Many want “worse is better,” and it is difficult to say they are wrong. Others say, pragmatically, that we should choose what is less bad, and then exert influence on it to force improvement.
Trump comes across as a businessman. He is repetitive, off-topic, focused on the deal. He speaks in generalities like one who is aware that the means of power define the methods that will be used, not the voters and pundits hovering at 50,000 feet above six months before. He drifted from topic, and assumed too much that his audience could complete his sentences and understand his context, and often failed to directly answer the questions even though one sentence could do so. However, this may be part of his strength: instead of playing the game, he keeps hammering on the points that are of relevance to the voters. This conveys a simple message, which is that he is there to make the deal work and he knows that he cannot anticipate this. Points for honesty, but looks good on camera.
Clinton (Hillary) came across as entirely polished and having memorized the correct thing to say in every situation. She reminds me of Angela Merkel or Francois Hollande in this regard, but it is alarming because these people are leaders of a quality inversely proportional to how well they do in press conferences and speeches. She answered every question directly with “something,” but that was almost always generalities composed of strong visual images that seem tangible until you realize that they are super-over-simplifications. She sounded like every high school principal and A-student girl in high school, always knowing the right thing to say, but entirely uncaring about how it would in application. She is all image and no substance, which means “totally untrustworthy” and creepy to boot.