Trumps debate strategy, approach to interviews, and weirdly his entire campaign approach resembles the Gish Gallop.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
Its essentially the shot gun approach. Eat up time by throwing out as many small, disprovable or non-sequetor statements as you can. Bully and interrupt the other debaters so they get minimal chance to respond or redirect. It keeps the substance of the debate entirely on your terms. And attempting to refute any of the statements can quickly bog a person down, as now all you’re doing is questioning/debunking individual statements. And its next to impossible to do that for so many in the time allotted. And even if you do successfully point out the fallacies in the major points, the judges/audience are often left with the impression that since you didn’t disprove all of it, you haven’t undercut the central concept or done anything to bolster you’re own argument.
Its not a valid debate strategy, doesn’t make for good and effective arguments, and its a definite sign of a serious huckster. But it does give me some pause. Because even very talented, experienced debaters often have trouble working around a Gish Gallop. You need to be active about getting your allotted time, avoid the pit falls of actually fact checking each statement, and find some way to recapture control. That can be tough, particularly in the face of a manic stream of endlessly repeated statement insisting some falsehood.
IIRC the typical tactic is to ignore the steady steam of BS, stick to making your argument and attacking the other guys position. Call out interruptions, fight for your allotted time. ETC. Basically an active version of ignoring it, while trying to avoid being put on the defensive.
So while it worries me a bit. Clinton is known as an excellent debater. And a presidential debate is sort of a different beast. Its not the sort of scored collegiate or stunt debate where you can “win” on points to claim success despite coming off like an asshole and noone buying your argument. The gallop is well enough known in the debating field that rules are often put in place to prevent it. And a presidential debate is a lot higher profile, with a lot more scrutiny. The press is resolutely not having Trumps bullshit these days. And in a presidential debate even otherwise weak journalists/moderators often make a show of being a little harsher.
So its kind of a wash. If he can get away with his usual approach, and Clinton hasn’t specifically prepared for the great flood of horse patoot, he might come off well to the American public (which is the point after all). But its probably more likely that in the face of some one not insane or weak willed. With moderators and formatting that don’t allow rambling nonsense. That he either comes of as a fool or collapses/explodes. In which case he falls back to petty accusations of “rigged” debates and unfair treatment from the press. A thing that’s not working for him. Though I’m sure that’s his thinking. Its a win win in his mind. If he comes out successful he’s the best, greatest debater! HUGE debates! If he loses he thinks he can make hay by blaming the media and scary conspiracies.
