Like millions of fellow Americans, I watched Monday night's presidential debate, and I came away feeling... surprisingly satisfied. I typically don't watch the debates because I personally don't find them particularly useful, and because they always make me feel anxious. It's like watching an episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm -- you are just waiting in uncomfortable anticipation for somebody to say something embarrassing -- but without any jokes to provide a payoff for your anxiety. But these are special times, and I was quite curious about what was going to be said, so I tuned in.
And I'm glad I did. Because I got to watch in real-time Donald Trump get his ass handed to him by a far smarter, far more articulate, far more prepared, and dare I say it -- far more likable -- opponent. He was totally and utterly objectively outclassed. It was like watching the neighborhood bully fight a kid who has been doing nothing but practicing mixed martial arts for the past four years. The bully came out and tried to use his weight and bravado to cow his opponent, but she easily weathered his initial advance, methodically maneuvered him into an advantageous position, and then ruthlessly delivered strikes of her own until the bully was trying to play the victim card and garner sympathy for himself ("She's being mean to me!").
Like I said, it was SO satisfying to watch. Even if it doesn't swing the election, even if there isn't a pro-Clinton bounce (although there probably will be), it still happened. We still all watched it. There is NO way a fair-minded observer can say that Trump did anything other than get destroyed. And that's very gratifying at the moment. In November, if Trump somehow manages to win -- which could always happen; that's just the country we live in right now -- Clinton's performance in this debate will be little consolation. But November is next month, for now, there is no harm in reveling in the epic smackdown we all witnessed on Monday night.
Also, there are two more debates, and it now seems highly unlikely that Trump is going to "win" either of them. I suppose it's theoretically possibly he could do a much better job, but the other debates will not have the viewing audience the first one did, so they are less likely to move the needle, and Clinton is a tough opponent, anyway. She has a strategy that if she sticks to it -- and given her preparation and performance in the first debate, I imagine she will -- is virtually indefensible: Troll Trump repeatedly. No matter what the question she has to frame her answer in a way that subtly (or not so subtly) belittles her opponent. She did this masterfully in the first debate -- bringing up Trump's "small" $14 million loan from his father, suggesting he isn't as rich as he claims, insinuating he's a racist, insinuating he's a sexist, and, one of my personal favorites, insinuating he's creepy (he likes "hanging around" beauty pageants).
The reason this is such a good strategy is because Trump inevitably takes the bait and gets off message (if he was ever "on" it to begin with) and starts saying stupid, offensive, or just downright incomprehensible things. He just absolutely cannot help himself. And even if he could, what's he going to do about it? Just stand there and let Hillary tear him apart with a barrage of insults without defending himself? How would that look any better for him? He would come off as weak and pathetic. He simply doesn't have the oratory skills or the critical thinking skills to outduel an adroit arguer. It's why Ted Cruz was dying to get him in a one-on-one debate during the primary. Cruz knew Trump wouldn't be able to go 90 minutes on his own, absent a stadium full of acolytes who cheer at literally anything he says no matter how offensive or bizarre.
It is widely acknowledged that Trump did much better at the beginning of the debate, and he did, but even if the entire next two debates go like the first part of the last debate, I still don't think Trump "wins." I think people get bored (how long can you rehash the effectiveness of past trade deals?), and it's a stalemate. Plus, Clinton knows she's vulnerable on trade and will undoubtedly have a focus-group-tested, polls-tested line of defense ready for another Trump attack on the issue. The winning target for Trump is so small, and he's such an unsteady shot, I'm not too worried he's actually going to hit the bull's eye.
One thing he might do, one thing he's been posturing to do is bring up Bill Clinton's affairs -- perhaps implying that Hillary was complicit in a cover up of a sexual assault or something like that. I think this would be foolish. For one thing, Hillary will absolutely be prepared for anything he has to say about this, and she will absolutely bring up Trump's own infidelities, and, again, given his terrible debate skills, I don't see how he wins this exchange.
Another thing he might do is hint at Bill's past transgressions, and then claim he's too kind to bring them up -- a repeat of what he did in the first debate. If he does this, if I'm Hillary, I'm calling him out on it. Here's what I would say:
If instead he actually tries to say something, he's on the spot; now he actually has to come up with something good -- the moment has been built up and the pressure is on. If all he has is some fusty, old conspiracy theory that everybody but hardcore Hillary haters tired of two decades ago, which is probably the case, then it will be very easy to parry away.
Also, at the end, I would launch into a heartfelt monologue about how difficult it is to have your personal problems litigated in public, being sure to emphasize that my opponent surely knows first-hand how painful and damaging infidelities can be to a marriage. I'd say something like this.
Alright, I think this is as good a place as any to end this one. I have to prepare myself mentally for the vice presidential debate. Just kidding. I doubt I will watch it. What's the point? Tim Kaine versus Mike Pence: Battle of the old boring white guys! Monday's presidential debate got ratings that rivaled the Super Bowl; expect the VP debate to be more in line with the Pro Bowl. That's a funny joke for football fans, by the way.
Until next time...
And I'm glad I did. Because I got to watch in real-time Donald Trump get his ass handed to him by a far smarter, far more articulate, far more prepared, and dare I say it -- far more likable -- opponent. He was totally and utterly objectively outclassed. It was like watching the neighborhood bully fight a kid who has been doing nothing but practicing mixed martial arts for the past four years. The bully came out and tried to use his weight and bravado to cow his opponent, but she easily weathered his initial advance, methodically maneuvered him into an advantageous position, and then ruthlessly delivered strikes of her own until the bully was trying to play the victim card and garner sympathy for himself ("She's being mean to me!").
Like I said, it was SO satisfying to watch. Even if it doesn't swing the election, even if there isn't a pro-Clinton bounce (although there probably will be), it still happened. We still all watched it. There is NO way a fair-minded observer can say that Trump did anything other than get destroyed. And that's very gratifying at the moment. In November, if Trump somehow manages to win -- which could always happen; that's just the country we live in right now -- Clinton's performance in this debate will be little consolation. But November is next month, for now, there is no harm in reveling in the epic smackdown we all witnessed on Monday night.
Also, there are two more debates, and it now seems highly unlikely that Trump is going to "win" either of them. I suppose it's theoretically possibly he could do a much better job, but the other debates will not have the viewing audience the first one did, so they are less likely to move the needle, and Clinton is a tough opponent, anyway. She has a strategy that if she sticks to it -- and given her preparation and performance in the first debate, I imagine she will -- is virtually indefensible: Troll Trump repeatedly. No matter what the question she has to frame her answer in a way that subtly (or not so subtly) belittles her opponent. She did this masterfully in the first debate -- bringing up Trump's "small" $14 million loan from his father, suggesting he isn't as rich as he claims, insinuating he's a racist, insinuating he's a sexist, and, one of my personal favorites, insinuating he's creepy (he likes "hanging around" beauty pageants).
The reason this is such a good strategy is because Trump inevitably takes the bait and gets off message (if he was ever "on" it to begin with) and starts saying stupid, offensive, or just downright incomprehensible things. He just absolutely cannot help himself. And even if he could, what's he going to do about it? Just stand there and let Hillary tear him apart with a barrage of insults without defending himself? How would that look any better for him? He would come off as weak and pathetic. He simply doesn't have the oratory skills or the critical thinking skills to outduel an adroit arguer. It's why Ted Cruz was dying to get him in a one-on-one debate during the primary. Cruz knew Trump wouldn't be able to go 90 minutes on his own, absent a stadium full of acolytes who cheer at literally anything he says no matter how offensive or bizarre.
It is widely acknowledged that Trump did much better at the beginning of the debate, and he did, but even if the entire next two debates go like the first part of the last debate, I still don't think Trump "wins." I think people get bored (how long can you rehash the effectiveness of past trade deals?), and it's a stalemate. Plus, Clinton knows she's vulnerable on trade and will undoubtedly have a focus-group-tested, polls-tested line of defense ready for another Trump attack on the issue. The winning target for Trump is so small, and he's such an unsteady shot, I'm not too worried he's actually going to hit the bull's eye.
One thing he might do, one thing he's been posturing to do is bring up Bill Clinton's affairs -- perhaps implying that Hillary was complicit in a cover up of a sexual assault or something like that. I think this would be foolish. For one thing, Hillary will absolutely be prepared for anything he has to say about this, and she will absolutely bring up Trump's own infidelities, and, again, given his terrible debate skills, I don't see how he wins this exchange.
Another thing he might do is hint at Bill's past transgressions, and then claim he's too kind to bring them up -- a repeat of what he did in the first debate. If he does this, if I'm Hillary, I'm calling him out on it. Here's what I would say:
You know, Donald, this is the second time you've implied you have something terrible to say about me and my family, but you aren't going to say it, because you're too "nice." Well, you're the same guy who has retweeted vicious memes about me from known white supremacists (*WRONG!*), so spare me the gentleman act. I'm no damsel in distress. I've been defending myself against lies from people much tougher than you my entire career, so if you have something you want to say about me or my family, go ahead and say it now to my face and to the American people.Then if he backs down, I would stare at him like an alpha gorilla, and say, "That's what I thought. That's what I thought."
If instead he actually tries to say something, he's on the spot; now he actually has to come up with something good -- the moment has been built up and the pressure is on. If all he has is some fusty, old conspiracy theory that everybody but hardcore Hillary haters tired of two decades ago, which is probably the case, then it will be very easy to parry away.
Also, at the end, I would launch into a heartfelt monologue about how difficult it is to have your personal problems litigated in public, being sure to emphasize that my opponent surely knows first-hand how painful and damaging infidelities can be to a marriage. I'd say something like this.
Alright, I think this is as good a place as any to end this one. I have to prepare myself mentally for the vice presidential debate. Just kidding. I doubt I will watch it. What's the point? Tim Kaine versus Mike Pence: Battle of the old boring white guys! Monday's presidential debate got ratings that rivaled the Super Bowl; expect the VP debate to be more in line with the Pro Bowl. That's a funny joke for football fans, by the way.
Until next time...
No comments:
Post a Comment