Over the course of these last three debates, we have seen a glorified Twitter war on our television screens. The debates at Hofstra University, Washington University of St. Louis, and the university of Nevada all showed us how stupid we were when we did not choose Bernie Sanders and Marco Rubio as the nominees of the two major parties. We have seen the “he said, she did” arguments and the arbitrary use of ad hominem, by both candidates.  I recently wrote an article assessing Donald Trump’s debate performance. Now, it is Secretary Clinton’s turn.

I felt that, although she did edge over Trump, Hillary’s performance became worse. It was not noticeable, but I believed that she became a miniature Trump. Hillary actually began to, unwisely, adopt Donald Trump’s tactics of attacking. In the end, however, her experience and her use of logos won me over (even though I am a Republican). Her prior knowledge of the Middle East conflicts and her time as Secretary of State gave the audience an idea: why not elect this woman? Hillary frequently used logos (logic) by presenting statistics and figures. She pointed out that her plans could work, while Donald’s would increase the national debt. From what I saw, she even used a bit of pathos (emotion) to sway the ordinary voter as well.

Based on my analysis, I think that Hillary did very well. She was a clear, effective speaker and would definitely get a spot on our debate team. Although she did insult Donald Trump (thereby using ad hominem), Mrs. Clinton did manage to pull ahead. To her credit, she had the Donald, Wikileaks, and Alex Jones on her tail and she managed to win.