The debate ended that day, and Hillary blew up.
Not because of any brilliant remarks she made in the debate, but because of that eye roll.
Her slight head shake and eye-rolling motion was turned into all sorts of memes by netizens, spreading wildly across forums and social media, sparking a wave of merriment.
Trump followed up quickly.
That very night, he posted a GIF on his Twitter.
In the GIF, Hillary eye-rolled, with flashing golden text below: "Hillary, I despise you."
Then another GIF, this time Trump eye-rolling, with text: "Can't take it anymore."
Trump's follow-up immediately turned netizens' joy hub; in under two hours, replies broke 30,000, with a ton of Hillary GIFs posted.
Hillary was furious.
As a veteran politician, she wasn't used to such mockery or ugliness.
She hated this behavior as highly immoral.
So the next day, she publicly condemned it and called Trump and his "supporter" joy-makers a "bunch of truly sad people."
This wording was clumsy and inelegant, quickly criticized.
Then Hillary apologized for the comment.
But actually, Hillary wasn't wrong.
Trump's style destined him to attract many supporters who were less educated rednecks.
These people lacked culture, were racist, ignorant of the world, arrogant, disrespectful to women... Uh, looked a lot like Trump.
Currently, the entire US voting landscape is:
Hillary attracts higher-educated urban voters; these self-proclaimed elites were traditionally Republican supporters.
Trump mainly attracts lower-educated white rednecks, whose ancestors were often Democratic coal miners or industrial workers.
Now, due to both sides' party-contrary policy promotions, their voter attributes have swapped.
In Martin's private words, although Trump is highly educated, in this election, he deliberately shows arrogance and ignorance, making it easier for the masses lacking world knowledge like him to trust him.
In fact, he also gains from flaunting his ignorance.
"This promotional strategy is great because if Trump competed with Hillary for elite support, he'd definitely lose. So better to forge his own path." Martin said.
Actually, many have noticed Trump's supporters have little interest in rational views—they see them as liberal elite stuff.
They think emotions matter more, and in the US and elsewhere, manipulating main emotions is fear, resentment, and distrust; Trump successfully exploited this.
Um, isn't it a bit like those celebrity fanbases—brainless, fanatic, facts irrelevant, idol always right...
In fact, Trump, with deep entertainment involvement, referenced that fanatic fan psychology in his campaign planning with his team.
Trump's supporters also show a resentful mentality; they resent bankers, politicians, corporate execs—this elite group—and also resent poorer Mexicans, or Middle Eastern refugees.
This is normal; in a globalizing, increasingly multicultural world, relatively disadvantaged groups hating even weaker groups is a common issue, especially in low-education areas.
Like Weimar Republic back then, haters and fearers had no trust in mainstream politics and economy, thus following leaders promising maximum destruction.
This is indeed related to education—not that higher education immunizes against incitement, but crappy education systems leave too many as disadvantaged groups.
Plus rising unemployment, these people's living standards declining daily; seeing no upward hope, they simply want to smash it all...
First, uprising rebellion is always from the bottom people who can't live on—that's the logic.
Of course, the ultimate victors' fruits never go to them.
Just as Hillary and Trump continue air-sparring, various sides' comments on the second debate come out.
Major media differ on who had the upper hand; the only consensus is: "This was the ugliest campaign debate in American history; Hillary and Trump's throughout personal attacks masked discussion of major policy issues."
For example, the famous Politico site commented: "In the 90-minute debate, Trump and Hillary called each other 'liar' over 23 times, 'untrustworthy' over 16 times, 'unfit for president' over 11 times—their personal attacks far outnumbered policy discussions. The whole debate was simply 'endless cursing and foul language,' utterly fruitless."
But most media thought that in this debate, Hillary didn't change, while Trump improved greatly.
Washington Post: "Tactically, Trump's second debate performance was the opposite of the first. In the first, Trump probed then defended, ultimately losing effective attack control on Hillary. In the second, Trump grabbed Bill Clinton's scandals from the start to attack Hillary, then emails—one bite after another."
The New York Times also said: "In the previous debate a month ago, we could clearly see Trump lagged far behind the politically experienced Hillary when talking policy. But this time, policy content was diluted by personal scandals; Hillary didn't leverage her advantage."
The Wall Street Journal thought: "From a tactical angle, Trump's second debate was the reverse of the first. In the first, Trump started probing then defending, ultimately losing effective attack control on Hillary. In the second, Trump seized Bill Clinton's scandals from the start to attack Hillary, then emails—one ring biting another."