to the editor: re <u+201c> trump won<u+2019>t say if he will accept election results <u+201d> (front page, oct. 20): there are those who are delighted that the three-ring circus <u+2014> known in some circles as debates <u+2014> is over. not me. the entertainment value went through the roof. but beyond the entertainment, these debates, more so than those of the past, really displayed the true character of the nominees, and their respective abilities to lead the country in these incredibly difficult times. yes, it was ugly and at times not much more than a barroom brawl. so what? at the end of the day, we watched a seasoned, experienced, balanced woman trade punch for punch with a nasty, no-holds-barred, unhinged demagogue, and nov. 8 will determine whom the country prefers. the debates accomplished their mission <u+2014> to expose the nominees<u+2019> true inner beings as well as the credibility of their vision of the present and for the future. it was unrigged democracy at its best. peter c. alkalay scarsdale, n.y. to the editor: at wednesday night<u+2019>s debate donald trump outdid himself with his reckless answer to the basic question: will you, like every presidential nominee before you, accept the results of the election? mr. trump insisted that we can wait for election day to find out. if you have zero faith in our democracy, you should not be allowed to run it. audrey dellas orlando, fla. to the editor: donald trump says he will wait until the election is over before deciding if he agrees with the results. why shouldn<u+2019>t he? given the negative onslaught by the media, the outlandish disparagement of his character by hillary clinton<u+2019>s vicious campaign of lies, the resistance to him from establishment republicans and his allegations of rigged elections <u+2014> why shouldn<u+2019>t he withhold judgment? otis page arroyo grande, calif. to the editor: donald trump says the election is rigged before it even happens. if true, it is just as invalid if he wins as it would be if hillary clinton wins. jeffrey l. feldman aventura, fla. to the editor: i worried if he wins; now i worry if he loses. daniel van der weide madison, wis. to the editor: it<u+2019>s ironic that many people continue to argue that hillary clinton hasn<u+2019>t articulated a vision for why she wants to be president. certainly donald trump<u+2019>s adherents, and much of the republican establishment, feel strongly that she does have one <u+2014> and they don<u+2019>t like it. those among us who still ask what that vision is will find it in the answers to virtually any question asked of her, as the debates have amply demonstrated. polk laffoon iv cincinnati to the editor: re <u+201c> mixing humor with scolding to defuse clashes in a final substantive encounter <u+201d> (news article, oct. 20): mentioning, unnecessarily, how much hillary clinton got paid for her speech at a brazilian bank may have been a fox news moment in the debate, but this clinton supporter thought that chris wallace did a commendable job as moderator. it has not been easy taming this circus of a campaign season. hillary clinton did not goad or trap donald trump as the media keeps insisting. she vanquished mr. trump by remaining true to herself: an intelligent, thoughtful individual who is committed to public service. stephanie nicholas acquadro westfield, n.j. to the editor: re <u+201c> the debates were a failure of journalism <u+201d> ( nytimes.com , oct. 20): david leonhardt is completely correct in labeling the lack of discussion on climate change during the debates as a failure of journalism. it is also a failure on each of the candidates<u+2019> parts. each campaign has spent an inordinate amount of time and energy on the other candidate<u+2019>s scandals. the real scandal is that the most important issue today is apparently not important enough to be discussed in depth or at all on the biggest pre-election stage. the clinton campaign has both privately and publicly wondered why it has failed to mobilize millennials and young people in the manner of barack obama or bernie sanders. this is why. william burstein montclair, n.j. a version of this letter appears in print on october 21, 2016, on page a26 of the new york edition with the headline: where we stand after the debates. today's paper | subscribe
where we stand after the debates
noauthor