Changes

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump faced off on Monday night in the first of the Presidential Debates. Though the candidates discussed a smattering of important topics, including national security, race relations, and personal background, the candidates spent more time answering questions about the economy than any other topic [https://www.graphiq.com/vlp/3G0kRoy9dMV]. This makes sense, given the United States' declining hegemony and global competitiveness. Despite the 28 minutes and 12 seconds spent discussing the U.S. Economy [https://www.graphiq.com/vlp/3G0kRoy9dMV], the candidates almost exclusively focused on trade and manufacturing sectors; almost no air time was devoted to even though the role fields of entrepreneurship and innovation, even though these fields have been cited as one of the best sources of hope for the economy [http://www2.itif.org/2016-clinton-vs-trump.pdf?_ga=1.265865103.1823216071.1474990123], virtually no air time was devoted to the candidates' policies on these topics. The This lack of air time doesn't stem from ignorance; based on prior experience, Clinton has demonstrated her commitment to entrepreneurship and innovation in the past through her support of various policy proposals [http://mcnair.bakerinstitute.org/blog/clintonkaine-and-entrepreneurship-2/] and Trump's record as businessman [http://mcnair.bakerinstitute.org/blog/trumppence-and-entrepreneurship/] both seem to lend themselves to a more substantive discussion on these fields. Given the profound impact entrepreneurship and innovation will have on the U.S. economy over the next four years, what do the candidates' performances in the debate say about the role of entrepreneurship and innovation in their vision for the United States' economic future? Both candidates Clinton and Kaine have demonstrated their commitment to entrepreneurship and innovation in the past through their support of various policy proposals (see [[Clinton|Kaine and Entrepreneurship]] for more), and Trump's record as businessman seem to lend themselves to a more substantive discussion on these fields.