Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
How Trump Could Win With The Presidential Debates
I recently had a friend from Australia ask me how Donald Trump would perform in the debates against Hillary Clinton. Like many others on Ricochet, I imagined that it will be a “Yumongous Humongous Cringe-fest.” But after examining the evidence and replying to the question, I started to realise America might be overlooking some of Trump’s debate skills.
Exceeding Expectations
Trump’s current perception is of a “buffoonish-jock” in the locker room, flicking his wet towel towards the puny kid for guffaws from his chums. And between bragging about his “flicking-prowess” he repeats that “We don’t win at towel-flicking anymore.” No one expected him to get this far, but he has. With such a low bar already set, it’s going to be extremely easy to exceed expectations. Trump has already made the political pivot, but it’s seldom reported outside of his vicinity. If opening a pickle jar is the only fitness test required to prove vitality, Trump presenting a convincing argument on a televised debate watched by millions might outdo that. To many people, just doing better than expected could sway opinion, even if it’s just a tiny amount.
Foreign Policy As The Game Changer
In prior debate cycles, foreign policy is one of the main pillars of topics. As a former secretary of state, Clinton might try to view this subject as easy fodder from sympathetic supportive moderators. However, if current Trump speeches are any indication, her failures in office could work to Trump’s advantage.
No Shenanigans Please, I’m Trump
Unlike Mitt Romney, who never swung back, Trump will fight the moderators. Having frequently alleged media bias, any deliberate attempt by a moderator to jump in and save Clinton, or asking a loaded or “gotcha” question, will work in Trump’s favour. If Trump is even close to being bamboozled, the moderators run the risk of becoming his Reaganesque “Nasuha Moment.” Even something as simple as asking “Why aren’t you asking Hillary this question?” and presenting the disparaging facts as to why they never will may do the trick. If Trump throws her off-balance enough, she might wander into the territory Ted Cruz did during his “New York Values” remark.
It’s All News To Some People
Presidential debate audiences are not merely political junkies. Many of them are like those who watch the Kentucky Derby once a year without knowing any of the nuances of horse racing. They couldn’t tell you who trained the horse or the jockey riding it, but become complete racing experts from the moment the starting gates open and the race finishes. These are the people who form mass opinions based solely on who won the Debate, not on the facts. This is the forum for people who don’t watch filtered news and where Trump has the ability to mention details unflattering to Clinton. He only needs to plant some doubt in the minds of this segment of the American public and for them to reconsider him over Clinton.
Master Manipulator
On that last point of doubt, that’s where Trump thrives. We’ve already seen Trump bilk enormous amounts of free publicity, yet we keep forgetting he’s been playing the media like a “Stradivarius-Stratocaster” for years even before he ran for office. Like when he skipped the Iowa Fox Debate to raise funds for veterans that depending on who you talk to, didn’t even do that. Yet Trump knows he’s playing to a large audience, which for him is where the real magic of manipulation begins.
Published in Politics
You know they have no idea what real achievement takes. Getting a construction project in a major city actually completed and occupied is a serious accomplishment.
But to trash others is easy.
Trump needs a much different demeanor to win these debates compared to the primary debates. The audience is different.
In the primary debates Trump played to the sort of person who is amused by antics, insults, and false charges, and is not too concerned with whether the candidate has the ability or intention to keep the promises he’s making, or knows what he’s talking about, as he often did not. He made the strategic decision that there were more such people in that audience than people who would be put off by those insults, false charges, and demonstrated ignorance.
I don’t think the relevant audience for these upcoming debates is the same sort of person. These will be the independents, the undecideds, the maybe as opposed to never Trump voters of the Republican party, the Democrats who can’t stomach Hillary.
These people want to see seriousness, thoughtfulness, gravitas, and might very well be turned off by braggadocio, insults, and false charges. Of course, true charges are perfectly fine, and should be used whenever relevant. But Trump has a tendency to turn a question about, say, education policy into a rant about Hillary’s erased emails. He has to be careful not to be too blatant. Attack her when the subject calls for it. She is horrible and there should be a lot of opportunities to point it out.
Appreciate your response, Craig. All I can say is that there are millions who don’t think he’s a buffoon, so the term just seemed a bit gratuitous. And, gleaned would have been fine, but bilked denotes negative behavior. The rest of your post was fine and informative. I’m probably a little over sensitive here on R>, after so many baseless attacks on Trump. Pace!
My point, exactly.
My quibble is that an unqualified zinger like buffoon is not necessarily generally true. I know you believe it, but are your views common to many?
Not to fret, Skyler, there’s plenty of space here at R> for Trump-Bashing hijinx! But, Tony and Skyler, I’m forced to report that the mistake has been made by many before we got your warning.
Trump is unpredictable, but I think that he’s going to do unexpectedly well in the debates. Whether you like him or not, you should recognize talent, and the guy is a brilliant showman.
He does have a tendency to put his foot in his mouth, but he seems to be improving rapidly. My impression is that his more recent speeches have been more disciplined, while remaining forceful.
My personal feelings have been mirroring Andrew Klavan’s. I haven’t decided to vote for Trump, yet, but I find myself rooting for him more and more.
I don’t know Trump. Those who do tend to speak highly of him and I wish I could see that man. What I do know is the image he spent months presenting to us was buffoonish, and given his very high negative ratings, yes, I suspect that they are common to many. Hell, I know people voting for him for that reason.
I think the candidates should do the debates drunk.
PJ O’Rourke and Christopher Hitchens did a wine tasting sober; then drunk. They were inspired by a legend that that was how the Greek gods (or someone or other) debated law.
And if the candidates refuse – well, then, I say we all volunteer.
I’m going to get drunk before watching the debates in the hope that it helps me forget the debates are on.
I was recently made aware of Jonathan Chait’s column in New York Magazine: Matt Lauer’s Pathetic Interview of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Is the Scariest Thing I’ve Seen in This Campaign. Chait also reached a couple of similar points, but based these solely on the NBC event.
FULL DISCLOSURE: I neither watch NBC or knew about the Wednesday Trump/Clinton event.