Changes

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump faced off on Monday night in the first of the 2016 Presidential Debates. Though the candidates discussed a smattering of important topics, including National Security and Race Relations, the candidates spent more time answering questions about the The Economy than any other topic [https://www.graphiq.com/vlp/3G0kRoy9dMV]. Even though the fields of entrepreneurship and innovation have been cited as one of the best sources of hope for revitalizing 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. In fact, of 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. Interestingly, only 9% of the labor market is comprised of jobs in manufacturing; most jobs involve a service of some kind (i.e. healthcare or teaching) [http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/09/27/495693013/episode-726-terms-of-the-debate]. How can we account for the overrepresentation of time devoted to manufacturing sectors? This lack division of air time certainly doesn't stem from ignoranceof other solutions; Clinton has demonstrated her commitment to entrepreneurship and innovation 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/] each seem to lend themselves to a more substantive discussion, at a minimum, on their experiences in 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?