Trump could win the debate simply by bluffing H
Post# of 51939
Posted On: 09/24/2016 6:14:36 PM
Trump could win the debate simply by bluffing
Hillary Clinton is going to be armed with facts, logic and policy chops at tomorrow night’s debate.
It’ll be like bringing a knife to a gunfight.
Unless Donald Trump has been hitting the briefing books and spending his evenings perusing back issues of National Affairs and The Economist — hey, the man has surprised us before! — it seems unlikely that he will have as many facts and details at his command as Clinton. And it doesn’t matter. Nobody comes out of a debate saying, “Wow, Senator Blutarsky had an impressively detailed answer on how to save 11 percent at the Department of Housing and Urban Development!”
Debates are about style, comportment, authority, the occasional zinger and the dreaded gaffe.
They’re about the direction of the country and who will steer us down the right path.
They’re about matching the emotional temperature of the voters. Now more than ever, they’re also about sizing up which candidate would be less unbearable to see on TV every night for the next four years.
So Trump could win a debate, or all of them, without getting unnecessarily acquainted with facts.
Factual command could even hurt Hillary, if she starts to sound like a lawyer-bureaucrat-weasel: Remember how everyone hated Al Gore when he droned on (though not during a debate) about how “no controlling legal authority” had forbidden him to make fundraising calls from the White House?
Trump may not have a lot of facts, but he has a lot of slick moves: He knows debate kung fu.
Monday night’s moderator, Lester Holt, like most journalists, probably lives in a media bubble, meaning he will be out to impress his friends and colleagues with tough, probing questions.
But his friends know far more about policy details than the median voter.
Moreover, the median voter doesn’t like to be reminded that he doesn’t know that much, and might well take Trump’s side if the questions are too picayune.
If Holt tries to catch Trump in a gotcha question like, “Mr. Trump, you say you have a plan to get the economy moving again but can you even estimate the size of the US economy within 2 trillion dollars?” Trump could easily win the exchange by turning the question into an attack on the current state of journalism: “You know what, Lester, that’s the kind of stupid question that is the reason why nobody trusts the media anymore. I’m not running for accountant in chief. I’m running for commander in chief. I’m a leader. I have a vision. And I have created tens of thousands of jobs building great things in this country, as opposed to Hillary Clinton, who has made herself rich by giving speeches to people who are buying access from her.”
Skilled debaters know that when you get a question you can’t answer or don’t want to answer, you swat it away and instead answer a question more to your liking.
President Obama does this in virtually every news conference he’s ever given: “Look, here’s what’s going on here.” Or, “I’m going to be totally frank with you . . .” Or, “The problem nobody wants to talk about is . . .” Boom, pivot to your talking points.
If Holt takes the bad advice of Clinton advocates and argues with Trump, rather than letting the candidates argue with each other, it’ll mean cutting in on him. “Mr. Trump, the question was about—” “Mr. Trump, that isn’t what I asked.” “Mr. Trump, can we get back to the subject—” Interrupting Trump will be a mistake.
Whatever his failings may be, Trump is an alpha male, and Holt is a nerd. Nobody outside the media-political-progressive class likes to see nerds beat alphas. It’s contrary to the basic order of things.
All Trump has to do is raise his voice a little to make it clear who’s in charge: “Ex-CUSE me, Lester, are you going to let me finish?” Or, “Listen, I’m the candidate here. People want to hear what I have to say, not what you have to say, OK?”
Holt will look pathetic, Trump supporters will roar and middle-of-the-road voters will think, “The man’s a strong leader, no doubt about it.”
Debates are not intelligence tests. They’re not LSATs. They’re television shows, and one participant is the former star of one of the top-ten highest-rated programs in the land.
The other admitted to voters last Monday in Philadelphia that she has a problem presenting herself: “When it comes to public service,” Clinton said, “the service part has always been easier for me than the public part.”
If only the presidency operated in secret
Hillary Clinton is going to be armed with facts, logic and policy chops at tomorrow night’s debate.
It’ll be like bringing a knife to a gunfight.
Unless Donald Trump has been hitting the briefing books and spending his evenings perusing back issues of National Affairs and The Economist — hey, the man has surprised us before! — it seems unlikely that he will have as many facts and details at his command as Clinton. And it doesn’t matter. Nobody comes out of a debate saying, “Wow, Senator Blutarsky had an impressively detailed answer on how to save 11 percent at the Department of Housing and Urban Development!”
Debates are about style, comportment, authority, the occasional zinger and the dreaded gaffe.
They’re about the direction of the country and who will steer us down the right path.
They’re about matching the emotional temperature of the voters. Now more than ever, they’re also about sizing up which candidate would be less unbearable to see on TV every night for the next four years.
So Trump could win a debate, or all of them, without getting unnecessarily acquainted with facts.
Factual command could even hurt Hillary, if she starts to sound like a lawyer-bureaucrat-weasel: Remember how everyone hated Al Gore when he droned on (though not during a debate) about how “no controlling legal authority” had forbidden him to make fundraising calls from the White House?
Trump may not have a lot of facts, but he has a lot of slick moves: He knows debate kung fu.
Monday night’s moderator, Lester Holt, like most journalists, probably lives in a media bubble, meaning he will be out to impress his friends and colleagues with tough, probing questions.
But his friends know far more about policy details than the median voter.
Moreover, the median voter doesn’t like to be reminded that he doesn’t know that much, and might well take Trump’s side if the questions are too picayune.
If Holt tries to catch Trump in a gotcha question like, “Mr. Trump, you say you have a plan to get the economy moving again but can you even estimate the size of the US economy within 2 trillion dollars?” Trump could easily win the exchange by turning the question into an attack on the current state of journalism: “You know what, Lester, that’s the kind of stupid question that is the reason why nobody trusts the media anymore. I’m not running for accountant in chief. I’m running for commander in chief. I’m a leader. I have a vision. And I have created tens of thousands of jobs building great things in this country, as opposed to Hillary Clinton, who has made herself rich by giving speeches to people who are buying access from her.”
Skilled debaters know that when you get a question you can’t answer or don’t want to answer, you swat it away and instead answer a question more to your liking.
President Obama does this in virtually every news conference he’s ever given: “Look, here’s what’s going on here.” Or, “I’m going to be totally frank with you . . .” Or, “The problem nobody wants to talk about is . . .” Boom, pivot to your talking points.
If Holt takes the bad advice of Clinton advocates and argues with Trump, rather than letting the candidates argue with each other, it’ll mean cutting in on him. “Mr. Trump, the question was about—” “Mr. Trump, that isn’t what I asked.” “Mr. Trump, can we get back to the subject—” Interrupting Trump will be a mistake.
Whatever his failings may be, Trump is an alpha male, and Holt is a nerd. Nobody outside the media-political-progressive class likes to see nerds beat alphas. It’s contrary to the basic order of things.
All Trump has to do is raise his voice a little to make it clear who’s in charge: “Ex-CUSE me, Lester, are you going to let me finish?” Or, “Listen, I’m the candidate here. People want to hear what I have to say, not what you have to say, OK?”
Holt will look pathetic, Trump supporters will roar and middle-of-the-road voters will think, “The man’s a strong leader, no doubt about it.”
Debates are not intelligence tests. They’re not LSATs. They’re television shows, and one participant is the former star of one of the top-ten highest-rated programs in the land.
The other admitted to voters last Monday in Philadelphia that she has a problem presenting herself: “When it comes to public service,” Clinton said, “the service part has always been easier for me than the public part.”
If only the presidency operated in secret
(0)
(0)