"He’ll use sixth-grade language, he will repeat himself many times, he won’t complete sentences, and he won’t say anything of substance.”
The problem is, that’s actually appealing to a certain percentage of voters. They don’t understand the nuances of the issues (or, really, anything about the issues), they have a sixth-grade vocabulary, they don’t know anything about current events, how politics works, how the economy works. They want caveman politician tRump to say, “tRump understand your pain, tRump make things better!” They don’t want to be bamboozled by “big words” and “facts” that are part of an informed discussion of the issues. Then there are those looking for a president who is “strong,” i.e. who will dominate his opponent in some primal, monkey way with insults and unwarranted aggression. (Of course, if Hillary does this, she’ll be a shrew and a scold, a nurse Ratchet.)
The question is: what percentage of the electorate are these people. The potential answer terrifies me.
“The Greatest Swordsman in the World fears a mediocre gunman.”
Hopefully Clinton won’t engage with Trump in the"debate" and will concentrate on getting her point over to floating voters in swing states. There is no way she can sway Trump voters, and, getting in to a slanging match with Trump will only serve to undermine Clinton’s credentials as any kind of a statesperson.
The thing isn’t so much that he won’t prep - it’s that he can’t prep. From everything that’s been said about him by people who know him, t-Rump’s not got the attention span to actually sit down and do the kind of serious prep that even George W Bush managed (that made people say, “Oh, he seemed like a bumbling fool before, but now he has a basic command of the facts!”).
Those voters are supporting Trump anyway. The general election is all about winning over the voters who aren’t die hards for one side or the other. Trump has been alienating those voters (including conservative-leaning ones) every time he goes off script.
What I worry about the most is that Trump will simply fail to alienate anyone. His position starts to improve any time he has a few blunder-free days. All he has to do is seem like a credible candidate for president in order to erode support for Hillary. He can “lose” the “debate” and still improve his position.
I recall seeing a clip of Ann Coulter several months ago saying Trump was going to wipe the floor with Hillary during the debates.
Ignoring how she might feel about Trump now, I’m curious how she thinks Trump would do this. Will he just refer to her as “crooked Hillary” all night? Will he ignore the questions so he can riff on all her “scandals” (Q: Mr. Trump, what is your energy policy? A: Well, if it weren’t for crooked Hillary’s crimes against humanity in Benghazi, which brings me back to my previous point about her emails . . . ")?
Can you get through a two hour live televised debate with no knowledge of policy, just spouting vague promises and angry sexist/xenophobic quips? How soon before he’s repeating himself or being obviously contemptuous of the moderators or complaining that the debate is rigged?
He won’t waste any time learning facts or memorizing places, names, dates, anything quantifiable. What he will do is practice rhetorical tricks, like the Gish Gallop etc. to make facts irrelevant and turn the debate into a spectacle of cult-of-personality performance.
He’ll just (attempt to) bully her into submission by flinging accusations, mockery and streams of muddled “facts” and opinions that can’t each be refuted one by one. The only way he can win, and he can win since all that matters is opinion polls afterwards, is by steamrolling her. Or as he would say, “schlonging”.
That’s exactly what he wants you to believe. It sets the bar low for him and raises it for Clinton. If he manages to look even halfway competent without having prepped (wink wink), it’s a big win for him. If Clinton doesn’t destroy him, it’s a loss for her.
I too, fear the debates will hurt Hillary. I remember Daffy Duck from the Looney Tunes used to have this patter where he talked something or someone up and would say, “He’s so great, he’s mediocre!”
That’s how I feel Hillary will come off: Mediocre and boring. She’s so knowledgeable compared to Trump, her sophistication might come through as being caught off guard. Ever see a qualified astronomer or scientists argue with a real enthusiastic Moon Hoaxer? They throw out so much bullshit it’s hard to seem like the expert isn’t ducking difficult details.
“Well I’ve SEEN documents outlining NASAs plans to set up studio.”
There’s no answer to that which doesn’t seem in some way uninformed, even though the documents clearly don’t exist.
And, I think the only way she could actually destroy him, is by making people laugh at him. Being smarter, more competent, more presidential, none of that will put her on top. If she can humiliate him with something really funny, that might work.
A better question might be the classic “How much does a gallon of milk cost?”.
Trump supporters might also be convinced that he was definitely not on their side if Trump’s name or the name of one of his lackeys showed up in the Panama papers trying to hide money overseas. Rich folks move their money in all kinds of ways that would make them unappealing to working class Americans.
