All the below links are in English. Excerpts are on our own.
標記討論会（於：@longwoodu）及び各種政策等に関する米加英豪シンクタンク等による記事の一部のリンク・抜粋を取り急ぎ以下貼っておきます。（本投稿一番下に私見を書きました。）
US Presidential Election 2016 Vol.2 (Who won the vice presidential debate? | @CNNPolitics)
2016 VICE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE: WHY THESE TWO KEY QUOTES ARE SO IMPORTANT | JUSTIN BUCHLER @CWRU_Polisci @KyleKopko @Newsweek
… Pence, unlike Trump, has always been a conservative hardliner, particularly on issues like abortion. The challenge that this creates is that most voters don’t share his views. Consider the following data from the 2012 American National Election Studies survey. While 45.7 percent of respondents said that women should always be able to attain an abortion as a matter of personal choice, only 11.5 percent said that abortion should never be permitted. …
… Political conflicts can be defined by “lines of cleavage,” Schattschneider wrote. If you want to win, draw the line of cleavage in a place that is beneficial to you, by placing as many people as possible on your side. If you oppose abortion for rape victims (as Pence does), don’t talk about it. …
POLL: Who Won the Vice-Presidential Debate? | @Olivia_Stacey @HeavySan
Mike Pence falls short…of an impossible task | @JohnJHudak
What Pence needed to do
What Tim Kaine needed to do
Don’t blame Mike Pence
Why tonight doesn’t matter
Why tonight’s debate might matter
6 things Trump definitely said that Pence claimed he didn’t | @henrycjjackson @politico
Mike Pence Defends Refugee Plan Blocked by Judges | @m_rhodan @TIME
VP Debate: Coming Out of the Shadows | William Harbour @longwoodu @HuffPostBlog
Insiders: Trump will sink Pence in VP debate | @POLITICO_Steve @politico
– ‘Is it just me or are the two VP candidates infinitely more appealing than their running mates?’ said a Pennsylvania Republican.
Vice Presidential Debates Have Mattered Before. Here’s A Look Back | @NPRrelving @nprpolitics
WHY THE VICE-PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE DOES AND DOESN’T MATTER | @JohnCassidy @NewYorker
COMMENTARY: Compare candidates on economy | @DeanBaker13 @cpsj @ceprdc
… This background is important since, in most areas, Clinton would continue and extend policies put in place by Obama, while Trump would reverse them. Starting with taxes, Obama restored the Bill Clinton-era tax rates on high income people. Hillary Clinton has proposed modest further increases in tax rates on the highest income households.
By contrast, Trump has proposed large tax cuts that would disproportionately benefit the richest people in the country. He would go back to the Bush-era tax rates on the very wealthy. This would reduce the taxes on the richest 1 percent by an average of more than $120,000 a year and the richest 0.1 percent by more than $700,000 a year.
He would also eliminate the estate tax, a tax that affects less than 0.2 percent of estates. In addition, he would cut the top corporate income tax rate from 35 percent to 15 percent. Trump’s tax cuts are projected to add $4 trillion to the debt over the next decade.
Clinton wants to keep and extend the Affordable Care Act. She has indicated she wants to make the subsidies in the health care exchanges more generous and give people the option of joining a Medicare-type public plan. She also wants to reduce the cost of prescription drugs by allowing imported drugs and also for Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices.
Trump has said he wants to repeal the ACA as one of his first acts as president. He says that he will replace it, but has not given any specifics.
Trump has also made a big point of saying that he wants to increase U.S. oil, coal and gas production by reducing regulation. It is worth noting that domestic oil and gas production both increased by more than 20 percent under Obama. Coal production is down, but largely because it can’t compete with cheaper alternatives.
Trump has also been eager to claim that he doesn’t believe in global warming and will do nothing to stop it. Clinton accepts the scientific consensus that global warming is a serious threat and will attempt to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
Trump has also complained that the Federal Reserve Board is keeping interest rates too low, implying that he would appoint people who would raise rates and slow the economy. Clinton would presumably appoint people who are more committed to supporting growth and job creation. …
Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump and the Economy | @DeanBaker13 @InsideSourcesDC
History is clear—high tariffs and trade wars devastate countries | Fred McMahon @FraserInstitute
Climate Change Can’t Get Traction In This Election, But Clean Energy Can | @JeffMcMahon_Chi @forbes
Compare the Candidates | @CFR_org
– See where the next Commander-in-Chief wants to steer the United States on the most pressing foreign policy issues.
– Who Are the Vice Presidential Candidates?
Clinton and Trump: Commanders-in-Half | Gary Schmitt & James Cunningham @AEI @RealClearNews
Donald Trump’s sycophant problem | @DLind @voxdotcom
– Presidents need to hear bad news. Donald Trump can’t handle it.
The US election is dangerous for Australia | Paul Dibb @ANU_SDSC @ASPI_org
Simplifiers v. complicators | @nfergus @BostonGlobe
私見：リンク一番上の@CNNPoliticsの@David_Gergen教授の下線部分〔概要：有権者は討論の細かい内容を調べるということはほとんどせず、その替わりに討論全体のトーンや候補者の出来の雰囲気を見て判断をする。ペンス氏の発言は必ずしも事実に相違しないこともないが、彼の落ち着きやすっきりした感じは有権者にウケた。良かれ悪しかれ、この種の討論会ではこういうスタイルが重要である。〕が、本討論会の時間帯には良く当てはまると感じました。どのような場合でも記事によっては、後で尾鰭が付き過ぎて実際とかけ離れている、党派性等が非常に濃い、更には、全然理解ないまま書かれている、などが有り得ます。今年の大統領選挙は現時点ではまだどちらに転ぶか分からない、従来ほとんど影響力を持たなかった副大統領候補テレビ討論会が今後投票日までに意外な影響を及ぼす可能性もある、と感じています。
