The final debate: Highly contentious but decisive

It may have proved to be the make-or-mar debate in the US presidential election held at the university of Nevada ,Las Vegas on Wednesday night .This is borne out by some reinforcing factors in what experts tend to characterise as one of the most convoluted US presidential elections to-date .

Looking at the performance curves in the previous two rounds of debate Hillary Clinton had won by around 18-20 percent over her rival Donald Trump. The pattern seems to have been confirmed by and large in the third and final round. Instant polling among those who watched it gave 52 percent to Hillary compared with 39 percent for Donald.

 The difference narrowing down to 13 percent for Donald this time around may be indicative of just simply a slightly improved performance by him. Also, one gets to feel how suggestions of a sex scandal revolving around him may have weighed in peripherally.

Well, two interesting snippets betray that blasé attitude to personal character issue of public figures. One American woman quipped that she was looking to elect a president, not choose a husband. In a Daily Mail issue, I am told, a woman with an asterisk sign on her t-shirt apparently suggested, 'He can touch me.'

On a serious note, however, a television commentator after the debate lamented how Trump let go of raising a touchy Clinton family issue - in the first debate, he had rather sensibly kept from referring to it recognising Chelsea's presence - when Hillary was taking her rival on his reported sexual indiscretions.

At the end of the day, Trump has lost all the three debates and that puts him in a bind from which it will be next to impossible for him to shore up his fortunes. 

More to the point, before Trump went in for the final round, electoral votes tally, the crucial determinant of victory or defeat in the race, was heavily tilted towards Hillary Clinton. As against her 300 plus pile, Trump camp cut a sorry figure of 170.

Thus, for both sides, very high stakes were involved on the eve of the third and last debate three weeks before the November 8 election to the most powerful office in the world. Even to the divided GOP, it offered the final chance for Trump to reverse the course, come back and turn around the momentum towards him.

This was a tall task for a person who did not emerge through the stepping stones of political offices like those of a senator, Congress representative or governor of a state to steadily land on a presidential race. He visualised a national role from a high pedestal as an extension of and equating it with corporate or company-centric successes. As if to blight his standing he allegedly did not submit his tax returns nor pay federal taxes. This came to light when Hillary was defending the Clinton charitable foundation vis-à-vis the Trump foundation.

For her part, Hillary had to craft credible answers to WikiLeaks latest disclosures of e-mails to ward off any blemish on her trustworthiness. She made a point of what she termed Russia's intervening in the electoral process to secure a Trump victory. Such an allegedly solicited interference in other country's affairs does not bode well in international relations.

Dogged by impressions having gained ground about uneven contests and rather low levels of conversions on mainstream issue often with escapist digressions, the Fox television anchor Wallace moderated the debate with great intrepidity. He choreographed the layout very carefully formatting the debate along such rubrics as would maximise articulation and juxtaposition of views so that the voters are able to make informed judgments.

The six self-contained segments read as follows: Supreme Court; appointments and interpretation of the Constitution; deportation; economy; fitness to be President; hot spots; and finally closing remarks on the question—Why you?

Clearly aimed to bring the best out of both the candidates, the US Presidential Debate Commission to a very extent succeeded in its mission.

The writer is a contributor of The Daily Star.