Steve Sailer writes: I hear a lot about how Trump will crush Hillary in their debates. But is there much evidence that Trump is a strong debater? He mostly seemed to scrape by in the GOP debates, and then flourish the rest of the week when he was alone on stage or in interviews.
Trump’s kind of thinking-out-loud isn’t well-suited to debates. A lot of people like how Trump takes them through his thought processes. It’s kind of a democratic way of leading — the campaign staff doesn’t have his researchers feed focus groups findings to his speechwriters. Instead, he just gets up there and starts talking about what’s on people’s minds — for example, note Trump thinking out loud, and pretty successfully, about that poor gorilla. And the audience can hear him trying out ideas and work his way through them in real time.
But all that requires a leisurely pace, which is not found in Presidential debates.
COMMENTS:
* Don’t go wobbly Steve.
Trump has won every battle to this point, so lets remain optimistic. He doesn’t even need to win on the debates, he just needs to have Hilary look old and tired onstage and have America listen to her shrill Midwest nasal dental drill of a voice.
I think all the debates, campaign stops, TV ads etc. are irrelevant at this point. Everyone on our side had seen what the establishment has in store for us if they win. This election is really about these issues, not the frippery surrounding it.
* I think that you are asking this question from your own perspective, Steve, as a former debater. How the average American swing voter views who won a so-called debate is a very different thing from how someone like you would judge it, according to the principles that you were trained in, back in the day. I believe that the unwashed masses, on the Internet, viewed Trump to have won almost all of the Republican debates, even though journalists and political pundits almost always thought otherwise. Scott Adams, the “Dilbert” creator and persuasion expert, believes that Trump has been playing on a whole different level from all of his competitors.
* All the liberals at my job think Hillary is a great debater and will demolish Trump in debates, nipping his fascist campaign for fascist walls in the fascist bud.
I don’t have any idea how it will fall out. Certainly, presidential debates are not high quality. They are a far cry from the Oxford Union, IQ2, or such. Borderline ridiculous.
My guess is that Trump can’t get up to speed on the issues fast enough because he isn’t interested enough. On the other hand, Clinton is likely to be unable to capitalize on this due to the fact that she’s relatively weak, interpersonally and intellectually. Her goal, whether she knows it or not, has to be to not turn off the entire electorate. So, as long as Trump can deflate/deflect the gotcha questions they will throw at him, it will be a wash.
* It’s really all about the zingers and quips. Trump treated the debates as competitive roasts only there to judge who got the best zingers in- which he was totally right about. It wasn’t a traditional collegiate or H.S. debate with rules—it was more akin to that black National Debate team’s “debates.” And this will be, too.
Trump gets that decorum and stuffy old rules are out. It’s not a win-on-points thing. Because this is a street fight. This is TV in primetime. This is his wheelhouse.
The audience will be salivating for him to do it to Crooked Hillary—even her supporters will be hyperventilating looking for his quips. Hillary obviously thinks he will do it to her–and she’s probably ( and stupidly) either lining up her own “zingers” (which will fall flat—like Rubio’s did), or else going to play the “Trump is a mean mean bully card” (also will fail—in one of her first debates when she first ran for Senate in NY, the token Republican dude came over and got in her personal space, and her campaign said it was something about “male domination” and it fell flat as an attack).
Look, his opening lines are potentially mic-dropping in its hilarity and its truth:
“See this woman over here? I paid her to come to my son’s wedding. And she came. She does what her paymasters tell her. Me? I can’t be bought. I’m worth billions; she’s worth whatever access you buy with her. You can have a crooked, bought candidate, or you can have a guy who can’t be bought, and who wins. And America loves a winner.”
BOOM.
P.S. it’s also gonna be great when he interrupts her and talks over her. She’s got a rep as a person who gets very angry when she gets ambushed or has to go off script. She’s used to total deference from her staff. Trump is probably planning on interrupting her at key moments to set her off. She’ll either get visibly angry–at which case he’ll harp on her temperament–or do some fake laughing bit to cover her anger, which will be endlessly mocked by Trump’s guys. And if she’s drinking before the debate—as she is a rumored heavy drinker…..
* Hillary has time, money, and experts to think about how to get under Trump’s skin.
* The same “experts” who brought us “Dangerous Donald”?
* Really? This is the insight from a former cog in the wheel of a marketing business. Trump probably laughs at this kind of peon perspective. He laughs at little men. Trump has spent his life locking horns with fellow titans and the aggressive cognitive elites of NYC. I’m sure he will do very well against Hillary. In fact, I think it’ll be a live demonstration on how to systematically dismantle a political opponent.
The late Christopher Hitchens on Hillary Clinton:
“Everything about this campaign, and everything about this candidate, was rotten from the very start. Mrs. Clinton has the most unappetizing combination of qualities to be met in many days’ march: she is a tyrant and a bully when she can dare to be, and an ingratiating populist when that will serve. She will sometimes appear in the guise of a ‘strong woman’ and sometimes in the softer garb of a winsome and vulnerable female. She is entirely un-self-critical and quite devoid of reflective capacity, and has never found that any of her numerous misfortunes or embarrassments are her own fault, because the fault invariably lies with others. And, speaking of where things lie, she can in a close contest keep up with her husband for mendacity. Like him, she is not just a liar but a lie; a phony construct of shreds and patches and hysterical, self-pitying, demagogic improvisations.” (No One Left to Lie To, p. 123)
* Ted Cruz is probably the best debater of them all, didn’t effect much. As with W people judge a debate on more than academic and policy point scoring, that said Trump could do with preparing and have some of the policy details nailed down, even if he intends his Presidency to be one of delegation.
* 1) You’re quite correct and Cruz was underwhelming but it is still true that Trump is not a great debater. Trump succeed at debates because he is ideologically different and can stress the big picture points. If you think the Iraq war a big mistake then Trump’s inelegant ramblings on it are great since the other candidates are on the opposite side. So Trump’s ability to win debates is due to his positions being far closer to the voters broadly speaking. The second reason he won debates is that Republican base knows he is on their side and therefore instinctively side with him over all the others including the media. If Trump can highlight the big issues where he differs drastically from Hillary then he should be good.
2) “As with W people judge a debate on more than academic and policy point scoring”
True but having a minimum of policy acquittance assures voters that a candidate is “capable enough”. Trump can’t meet those standards based on what we have seen. On details he is very sketchy. From what I recall he got the nuclear trident question wrong on two occasions despite being publicly humiliated the first time on tv. The question isn’t super important per se but the fact that he didn’t swallow his pride and read up on it, to avoid the same embarrassment, is. This is by far his biggest weakness and shouldn’t be hard to correct yet he is astoundingly lazy,intellectually speaking, so who knows.
3) Trump was smart to avoid a 1 v 1 debate with Cruz because it would have inevitably exposed him on the details. He won’t escape this fate against Clinton and nor will be able to run down the clock as much. So be prepared for some embarrassing moments. Furthermore, the sort of people who follow Trump through thick and thin are already mostly on his side. The rest of country won’t be as loyal. And nor will be able to use his wit as much as the 1 v 1 debates are more formal and less open to retorts.
Trump’s advantage?
1) As so many times already Trump’s strength is the ability to fight the match according to his rules. If Hillary tries to come up with smart lines zinging Trump she will be devastated by him. Because he is good at that and she is not quick on her feet. And when faced up against awkward lines and questions she retreats to a snarly and snarky attitude which is a put-off. She does this at debates and with interviewers.
2)One of his best cards was to stake out a position that is broadly popular but non-establishment, which forces other candidates to look weak or me-too(like Cruz on immigration). So he should always make clear that Hillary won’t say “islamic extremism” and goad her into it for example. Force her to triangulate between his position and Obama’s on one big issue after another. Before and/or after each debate I would hold a (re)statement on some big issue which would shape the newscycle on the media and on her. She hates speaking to the press so he should force her to and if not she cedes the landscape to him.
* Steve, you’ve been losing so long that you’ve forgotten how to win. You’ve got to get used to winning again.
* She’s also got a morally confused, devious and paranoid homosexual (David Brock), Muslim lesbian lady-in-waiting (Huma Weiner) and hordes of brainwashed feminists all across the fruited plain.
* He should just work on insults and one liners. He a master troll and he really needs to keep offending. If he can make Hillary cry preferably during a debate, that would be the best thing. On the other hand if his people think he hasn’t got their back or that he’s going to back down and apologize, he’s done. Trump isn’t a great debater and his policy flubs are embarrassing, but that doesn’t make any difference. This is the first election where whites will be voting in their interests as something like a bloc group. They are now effectively just another minority. They don’t have the vocabulary or the courage to make that explicit, but they know that Hillary and a continuation of Republican/Democrat policy positions are poison to them. When one candidate is advocating WW3 abroad and demographic displacement/voluntary self abnegation and impoverishment at home, it’s easy to ignore wonk stuff and vote for the guy who’s counter signalling against that.
It helps a lot that Hillary is a very weak candidate with negative charisma and no real appeal to anyone. I won’t be surprised if they pull the nomination out from her again like they did 8 years ago. Her shtick is that it’s her turn. That didn’t work 20 years ago for Dole or 8 years ago for her against Obama, and it’s weak sauce now.
* This team won the college debate championship. Trump should emulate their style for laughs.
Published on May 5, 2014: “Real footage of the skilled debaters of the winning 2014 Cross Examination Debate Association’s National Championship team.”
* BTW, if anyone is going to get under anyone’s skin, it’s Trump that’s going to get under Hillary’s skin, and not in any debate. I can easily see Trump saying something that starts a huge Caucasian chimpout between Bill and Hillary that gets massively personal and in public view.
* Trump’s is a wild card because he cannot be predicted to act like a typical beta who would normally be deferential to a woman. His alpha nature does not allow him to take shit from women any more than he does men. That means he will not only return fire whenever he chooses but he will aim it where it hurts most; whether it be her husband’s affairs, Syria, or her shoes. Clinton will have to be prepared to defend everywhere. And you know what they say about she who defends everywhere…?
* The Presidential debate between Hillary and Trump is likely to be like nothing we’ve ever seen.
On the downside for Trump, I don’t expect that he will be particularly conversant on the issues, and will likely somewhat embarrass himself with false or obviously wrong answers on a number of questions. On the other hand, he’ll probably be distinctly better prepared for these debates than he was for the Republican debates. He’s been hanging around the political scene as a candidate for far longer than he ever has before, and, because he now has a shot of winning it all, will finally have a decent reason to pay some genuine attention to the issues. I’d expect him to improve quite a bit more than might Hillary — who presumably will hardly improve at all — because he started from such a low baseline of knowledge.
But that’s perhaps the least important dimension of the debate. Far more important will be two other aspects: the positions each will take, and the utter willingness of Trump to “go there” to press his points.
The primary goal the debates can achieve for Trump is to put to rest the idea in the minds of the public that he represents an extreme right wing ideologue. The elite with which we have been blessed has spent endless words and money so depicting him, and it is the major concern of most of the public on the fence as to whether to vote for him.
Hillary has been horrible, truly and almost unbelievably horrible, as Secretary of State. Everything she has done that wasn’t entirely routine turned into chaos or a fiasco. Her intrusion into Libya was a destructive disaster for American interests from Benghazi through the so-called “refugee crisis” to which it contributed. Her positions on Syria and Russia and ISIS were again nothing but disasters, supporting “rebels” who should have been treated as enemies, treating Russia as an enemy when on this issue it should have been an ally, and again creating the so-called “refugee crisis”. And Hilllary, going further back, notoriously supported the Iraq War, which again engendered nothing but chaos.
What Trump can do with this, and likely will do with it, is to turn the tables on the “progressive”, and make it clear that it is she, not he, who pursues reckless, and perversely stupid, military adventures. This will resonate with an American public disgusted with the waste of blood and treasure in the ME and with its ultimate product: “refugees” no one in their right mind wants to deal with.
And Trump can make it clear that he is also not a standard issue Republican who wants to take away entitlements, or undermine many of the social values most Americans have come to accept. And he can, again, turn the tables on the “progressive” by making it clear he will go to bat for the American workers, and will cut out the “globalist” view that Hillary has long supported.
I think there are many voters who haven’t yet realized where Trump actually stands, because they have been swamped with cries of “Fascist” and “Hitler” and depictions of Trump as being way off on the extreme right — so much further than any previous Republican candidate. Of course, Hilllary’s supporters in the media will try to argue that Hitler was also “liberal” on certain social issues — but I think that’s far too subtle a point to resonate with the public. Besides which, didn’t Hitler engage in all kinds of reckless, destructive military adventures? Isn’t that a good part of his being Hitler?
So Trump has a yuge opportunity here. I’m sure he’ll jump on it, and in his genuinely unique style.
“Going there” has its upsides and its downsides, but in this context I think on balance it will be the upside that prevails. Trump will never blanch from making his points against Hillary in a way that can’t be ignored, or misunderstood. He will be believed because he will be recognized for speaking his mind, even when he might be better off on a given occasion NOT speaking his mind. A Kinsleyan “gaffe” will become a Trumpian “breath of fresh air”. I do think that at the end of this process many in the public will come to see Trump — maybe even politics — with new eyes.
The question always remains as to whether the public is ready for so much change in policy, outlook, and style in a President. But the current polls look pretty encouraging.
* Trump will have Hillary stuttering just like he has Obama stuttering. She will probably run to the bathroom.
* For Trump to win he needs to make this about immigration, or more broadly the incredibly shitty future that the establishment–people like Hillary–have in store for American citizens as they strip our citizenship of meaning.
– Jobs \ unemployment — particularly hitting America’s low skilled (minority)
– Reduced wages
– The coming robot revolution — mass unemployment
– Skyrocketing welfare
– Reduced prosperity
– Crappier schools
– Bilingualism
– Expensive housing … especially to find it in neighborhoods with “good schools”
– Section 8
– Bilingualism
– Loss of social cohesion, balkanization
– Terrorism
– Crowding sprawl traffic
– Environment degradation, loss of open space
– 500 million people around the world would like to come here.
– Total US population?–ask Hillary to pick a number 500,000,000? 1 billion. Where does “immigration” end? Packed in like India or China?
