This is spot on.
She needs to be there. She needs to have energy. She needs to talk about plans and proposals and try to laugh off Trump’s crazy talk. She needs to be ready for a few tough questions from Chris Wallace, who’s a tough but generally fair reporter and moderator. Not a fan of Fox news but felt he actually ran one of the better primary debates.
Unfortunately emotion is just not her thing. The safe strategy for her is to be who she is but try to emphasize an optimistic message. People are tired of the pessimism. They want this race to end on a high note. If Hillary can resist the temptation to dig back at Trump and channel some of what she said at the Convention I think that would be her smartest move. People have been waiting and waiting and waiting for a reason to vote FOR Hillary Clinton, not just against Donald Trump. At this point, the dirty laundry on both candidates is out there. She needs to contrast Trump’s pessimism with her optimism. I think she needs to go Barack Obama more than Michelle Obama in this one.
Ideally, what she wants is polite, on-topic statements which Trump will interpret as digs. Her addressing him as “Donald” in the first debate was an example of that: It’s the appropriate and friendly form of address between people in their positions, but he hated it.
Can I come up with specific examples of that that she could use? No. Speechwriting, applied psychology, and the like are not my specialty. But I’m sure she has plenty of people for whom that is their specialty working for her, and they’re working very diligently on it.
She needs to have her team drop the next coordinated bombshell about 3 hours before the debate.
Seriously though, the next bombshell is already scheduled to arrive tomorrow: the date that Trump Foundation has to provide eight years of audited Financial records, or be declared a fraudulent organization by the New York attorney general.
Either way, the “closing of this Foundation”/“reviews of the audited records”/“Trump refuses to comply with court request” news is going to dominate the news cycle Tuesday and Wednesday
I think she needs to make explicit the connection between her goals and the need to elect a Democratic Congress, while she’s got the ear of a national audience.
She needs to say, "I want to increase the minimum wage to ($12? $15? can’t remember what she supports). The Republican Party will fight to keep it at $7.25, and many of them want to reduce it to zero. The minimum wage will only go up if I have a Democratic Congress to work with.
"I want to invest billions of dollars into our neglected infrastructure needs. President Obama has wanted to do this, but the Republicans in Congress have kept this from happening. This would create hundreds of thousands of high-paying jobs. But only if you elect a Democratic Congress.
"And because I’m such a pawn of Wall Street, I want to pass laws that would make it easier for workers to unionize and have the power to fight their own battles with big corporations. The Republican Party is fervently opposed to this, and will fight it to the last Congressperson, which should tell you which party is the true pawn of Wall Street. I can only get these laws passed if you elect a Democratic Congress.
“So if you want these things to happen, don’t just vote for me. Vote for Democrats all the way down the ticket. Because that nice Republican Congressperson or Senator who represents you now, who is so friendly and likable, is going to be friendly and likable while voting against all of these things.”
If she was acting, alert the academy.
In Hillary’s shoes I’d be tempted to start off with my plans to assign a special prosecutor once elected…
And whatever “performance enhancing drugs” she’s using (seriously Donald?) she shouldn’t stop.
Ignore Donald as much as anyone can ignore a petulant 5 year old and stick to the issues.
She might want to nudge him about his (non-existent) 9/11 donations that he never really followed through on.
Given Trumps latest rant (against SNL), she should invite Alec Baldwin to sit in the audience.
Show up and don’t throw up.
Wednesday the 19th, 9pm EST. Held in Las Vegas. Similar format to the first debate.
What is important is for Hillary to solidify her support among groups she needs and drive a wedge between them and Trump.
Women (especially educated women)
Latinos
moderate republicans
etc. The more support Trump loses from those groups, the harder it will be for him to get to 270. Hillary doesn’t even need to win moderate republicans, demoralizing them enough to vote third party will make it easier for her to win.
I think her method of violating Trumps boundaries was good in the second debate. She’d come over to his side of the stage and act like she owned it, which you could tell was rattling Trump.
Direct attacks on Trump won’t work, however constantly refusing to treat him as an ‘alpha male’ and constantly bringing up his failing (w/o it seems like an attack) could cause him to become emotional and unhinged, which will hurt him with the above groups.
Ignoring him, ignoring his interruptions, pointing out his failings, etc. will rattle him and cause him to go off message. Hillary did a really good job of this in the first debate.
And for her to back out of a debate she’d already formally agreed to be in would look terrible.
It would also be I think unprecedented.
Like ‘unprecedented’ isn’t the new normal.
I agree with those who say she just needs a measured round - she’s way ahead on points, stay out of distance, dance and jab.
Avoid it. Mow the lawn, clip your nails, bake cookies for the Mr. and Chelsea-Wellsy if she’s home, shop for White House doilies, anything really…
So terrible that 0 people intending to vote for her would change their minds. Actually, she may gain a few votes from intellectuals who appreciate that, regardless of former promises, she refuses to engage in petulant bickering (I’m using this apt phrase too often) with a baboon, accomplishing nothing, again.
Can you cite that “or”? I was under the impression that the “or” was “or not be able to raise additional donations and have to pay a fine,” but I could easily be wrong.
Edit: oops, you’re right.
Baiting Trump is like shooting at fish in a barrel. She should open with a quick jab to bait him, which he will react as expected, and then just stay on the high-road, on message, positive, and focused on experience and policy.
RTFirefly, I understand what you are saying about distinguishing her positions from the general GOP, but drawing a hard line like that may make some of them go to the polls to vote GOP down-ticket. I think a wiser strategy is to show them the areas where they are in agreement with her - that would make them either vote for her, or simply stay home or skip the vote for President. Taking a hard Dem stance is likely to validate her as the Liberal boogeyman Trump and the GOP have been trying to message.
And her standing right in front of him made it difficult for him to interrupt her.
I’d advise her to play it safe. Stick to her script, and let Trump do whatever he wants. She’s up by 4 touchdowns with 2:00 on the clock, and Trump is out of timeouts. He’s the one that needs a miracle finish, not her.