Good point – will do. In fact, my 5-year-old and I are about to bike 1 mile, to a Russ Feingold fundraiser. We’ll hobnob for a few minutes (and learn how we can help Hillary in coming weeks), then come home. Then it will be time to drink a bit more (but not too much – gotta work tomorrow).
Historically, Trump fucks up-- sometimes royally-- when he doesn’t have a teleprompter in front of him. The teleprompter is a somewhat recent addition for Don, and he’s been very much on-message ever since it’s been regularly put in front of him. But 90 minutes of staying on-message? For a guy who does very little prep work or research? I just don’t think he can keep his train from careening off the track into the neighboring farm. Ninety minutes of him talking all by himself, with no written words in front of him? Cows WILL die, as may the farmer’s daughter.
Hillary has rarely, if ever, been ahead because of what she’s done or said in this campaign; it’s usually because Trump royally shits the bed. She doesn’t need to “show her likable side” or “endear people” or even “win.” She just has to rope-a-dope for 90 minutes, and Trump will likely damage himself.
Maybe I’m wrong, but that’s my prediction. Ninety minutes of rope-a-dope where Clinton comes out the victor after watching Trump punch the snot out of himself on national television.
Keys for Hillary:
-
Look calm and smile when under attack
-
Smile more even when not under attack
-
Show some passion and values on certain hot-button issues like race relations, lifting the middle class, etc.
-
Don’t get bogged down giving long answers to questions about emails or anything she’s already answered a million times – and again, smile and don’t get angry and defensive about it. Expect it and try to have a sense of humor about it.
Keys for Donald:
-
Don’t confuse Hillary, a woman, for one of the many male debate opponents he’s disrespected in the past. The wrong kind of diss could piss women off in visceral ways he might not be able to anticipate
-
Get into proposals and don’t get bogged down in specifics – it’s worked so far.
-
Be aggressive but controlled
-
This is the key: Stay off of twitter tonight and tomorrow – like big time. Don’t complain about moderation, Hillary’s attacks, or post-debate commentary. Let Kelly Ann Conway and Steve Bannon do their jobs. Donald probably won’t lose the election based on his performance tonight but if he has another twitter meltdown that lasts for days on end, that could end it for good.
-
Entertain the audience: we’re here to see a show. Say some funny things without going overboard.
I absolutely disagree with this – I think she really needs to improve her likeability quotient. She doesn’t have to do a whole lot to do it either. Just smiling more and faking some amusement over Trump’s antics might actually do the trick.
If there’s one area where I really worry about Trump being able to land some blows in the debate, it would be foreign policy, which is considered by many to be her strength. However, Trump will most likely attack her brutally on matters like Bengazi, her Libya policy, her Iraq vote, and the things that Bernie Bros have dragged her through the compost heap about. She will have to find ways to fight back without losing her cool.
I don’t post much in elections, but this election frightens me more than any in history. I hope Clinton, someone I have never supported, wipes the floor with that boorish, vulgar man.
Not sure what to expect, but should be fascinating.
Trump’s overriding motive in pretty much everything is that he hates to lose. I’d be willing to bet that even he is smart enough to realize that the best way to win is to stand up, look presidential and be able to reply semi intelligently on any expected topic. The expectations of him are so low that even a PoliSci 1 answer will send his followers into a rapture about how much smarter he is than the media gives him credit for.
He won’t have nearly the depth that Clinton does but then again, you don’t really need depth when your answers are limited to two minutes or so. He’ll probably split his time giving rudimentary answers to the questions, attacking Clinton, and he’ll probably be coached on one or more fall back answers about how he doesn’t need to know every premier’s name or what the INF is but that his business background has prepared him to know how to make decisions. Good decisions. Trust him.
Anyone else planning on watching on CSPAN for split screen goodness?
This is how I see things as well, pretty much.
If Mrs. Clinton can withstand his attacks ad remain nonplussed, and get in a few good digs at his policies and past words AND Mr. Trump loses his cool, Mrs. Clinton will look excellent to any remaining undecided voters and to her current supporters. This would generate substantial momentum, IMO, for the Clinton campaign.
If Trump doesn’t lose his cool, he wins this debate and inches closer to becoming POTUS.
I am. Can’t stand all the rigamarole that goes on with the other networks.
If you watched Hilary on “In Between Two Ferns”, you’ll notice she can’t do a very good fake smile. So I don’t know how well that’s going to work out for her.
That will drive up MNF ratings …
I’m not sure you really understood that video.
Alright, who let Sheldon Adelson into the building?
I hopped to bed expecting to watch a rerun hours later, but deep sleep never came — maybe anticipation of the debate excited me subconsciously!
So … any recommendation on how to watch the debate via free Internet (often of low bandwidth)?
News websites typically carry it – maybe even Guardian or BBC? Twitter might have it as well.
Didn’t see it posted earlier in the thread: here’s the link to the livestream of the debate.
I disagree with the conventional analysis which says that all Trump has to do is show up – viewers have their expectations of Trump just as they have their expectations of Clinton. The key is to move the notch a little and to accentuate or perhaps even reveal some positives that viewers didn’t expect while being a pleasant surprise in other ways.
What people don’t like about Trump is that he’s a blowhard – his hardcore supporters might like that but he’s trying to expand outward a little more. He somehow needs to be the tough guy on certain key things like Bengazi but while simultaneously somehow showing a sliver of compassion to voters who are skeptical of him (women, minorities, and moderate whites who want to feel good about their votes).
What people don’t like about Clinton is they think she’s a careerist – yes they get that she’s smart but they think anyone who’s put together a billion-dollar enterprise can be a quick study and hire smart advisers so having smarts alone won’t help her. It is an advantage but not a finishing move in WWE speak. What they really want to see from her is that she’s more human and that she also has values and passion, and that she’s not there just to win votes but that she’s fighting for something she believes in and a cause that people can identify with.
Neither candidate would be wise to just show up. They both need to sell their persona, not necessarily their qualifications for the job. It’s not really a job interview but rather an audition, and there’s a difference.
“This candidate is far too honest - I can’t support her!”
Starting with a pretty good local amber ale. I figure if I need the hard stuff, there’s always the bottle of aged mescal.