Conventional wisdom says Donald Trump is going to lose, and lose big.
You see it everywhere in corporate media. Republican Party insiders are bereft and in denial, simultaneously refusing to accept the reality that their party is facing the possibility of catastrophic defeats in races all over the country this fall; indeed, some pundits say Trump marks the beginning of the end of the GOP. The New York Times is running a 24-7 odds placement that puts Hillary Clinton’s chances of victory at 86% against his 14%.
Indeed, if the election were held today, Hillary Clinton would beat Trump by a sizable margin. But the election is in two months. Two months is a long time. Old scandals percolate; new ones emerge. Another terrorist attack could prompt voters to turn to the right.
By far the biggest potential game changer, however, is the presidential debates. Conventional wisdom says Hillary Clinton will use her superior command of the facts and her ability to namedrop world leaders to run circles around Trump. But conventional wisdom is often wrong – just ask unstoppable 2016 Republican presidential nominee Jeb Bush.
I think Donald will trounce Hillary in the debates.
In fact, I can’t imagine any scenario in which she doesn’t get destroyed.
We like to think that the presidential debates are about issues and facts. They aren’t. The winner is the candidate who unleashes the zingiest one-liners and putdowns.
“Where’s the beef?”
“I knew Jack Kennedy; Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.”
You’ve watched Donald Trump. You’ve watched Hillary Clinton. Who do you think is better positioned to control the format?
I have no idea whether Hillary Clinton can be quick on her feet or sharp with a nasty one-liner. It doesn’t matter. Her brand is experience and competence. She can’t get down into the gutter with Trump without undermining her message that she’s the adult. She has to look serious and come across as – there’s no other word for it – boring. Remember what happened to Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush when they tried to out-Trump Trump: they wrecked whatever chances they still had to stop him during the primaries.
A more courtly candidate (Bernie Sanders) might have gone easy on Clinton for fear of being viewed as sexist. That concern won’t cross Trump’s mind. He’ll go after her with the ferocity of Black Friday shoppers chasing down a discount Xbox.
Does Trump have vulnerabilities? Obviously. Hillary’s aces in the hole are the temperament argument and his refusal to release his taxes. The secrecy surrounding his tax returns raises suspicions that risk unraveling the fundamental rationale of his candidacy: I’m rich and successful, and I can use the talents I used to get that way to benefit the country. But her vulnerabilities are more serious.
The problem for Hillary is that she has gotten a relatively free ride from journalists and pundits, most of whom will vote for her. Her hypocrisies and inconsistencies comparatively unexamined, she emerges from her primary campaign untested and untempered. The debates offer Trump a juicy opportunity to expose those weaknesses on what promises to be a national stage with record audiences.
If she asks him about his tax returns, he can deflect by demanding the transcripts of her speeches to Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street firms, which she repeatedly refused to release while fending off Bernie. When she goes after him on ethics, he’ll pound away on the 30,000 deleted emails. Oh, and now there’s the latest Clinton Foundation sleaze too.
If Trump wants to go nuclear, he can slam her with the biggest unreported story of the year: the allegation that her husband President Bill was a frequent flyer on a convicted pedophile’s sexual tourism escapades overseas.
I understand why Secretary Clinton was reluctant to agree to any debates. Past performance suggests that she isn’t a strong debater to begin with. Going against a master reality TV and pro wrestling ringmaster like Donald Trump has got to feel like walking into the Coliseum with nothing but faith in God to protect you from the lion’s maw. Trump knows all the tricks: how to deploy comical facial expressions as well as Jim Carrey, how to dominate others using body language, a laser-like ability to identify an opponent’s weaknesses and reduce them to rubble via ridicule (“Little Marco”). In an American presidential debate, 15-point white papers don’t count for jack. The best entertainer always wins.
During a 2000 debate Al Gore walked right up to George W. Bush, looming over him in what many watchers interpreted as an attempt to intimidate the Texas governor. Bush merely looked up at Gore and nodded, a droll look on his face. Bush was an idiot. Gore was a genius by comparison, a fact he proved by repeatedly drawing upon his superior knowledge of the issues and proposing infinitely more intelligent solutions to problems. But it didn’t matter. Voters thought Bush won.
Will Trump’s likely victories in the debates be enough to close the current gap between him and Clinton in the polls? Maybe. All I know is, anyone who says it’s all over is whistling past the graveyard.
It’s all about the debates.
[A side note and thank you: thanks to more than 750 generous contributors, we were able to successfully crowdfund the civil court bond required for me to continue my lawsuit against the Los Angeles Times to the tune of more than $75,000. The next major hearing in the case is currently scheduled for March 2017. I am humbled and gratified by the commitment of so many people to free speech and freedom of expression. I will keep you posted.](Ted Rall is the author of “Bernie,” a biography written with the cooperation of Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders. His next book, the graphic biography “Trump,” comes out this Tuesday, July 26th and is now available for pre-order.)
12 Comments.
“”The problem for Hillary is that she has gotten a relatively free ride from journalists and pundits,”
Free ride? As in ’64, the Hillary campaign is saying a vote for Trump is a vote for a nuclear holocaust. But the Johnson campaign had to pay for those ads, while the MSM has given the Hillary campaign those ads for free.
There is no evidence Trump reiterated the question of how a president deploys the nuclear arsenal, but it appeared as front page news on the MSM newspapers and websites.
Trump donated an 18-wheeler full of stuff for the flood victims in Louisiana, but the MSM focused on a single shot of Trump opening a box of toys for children who lost all their toys in the flood, saying that was all Trump donated, and only for the publicity.
And the MSM keeps repeating that Trump ordered a mum to remove her child because Trump hates children, when that’s not quite what happened.
***
Those who heard the ’60 debate on radio were sure Nixon won it, but those who saw JFK on TV knew he’d won, and a very large plurality (but not a majority) voted for him.
This election is different.
Trump ran for the nomination in a way compared to The Producers (play and film) about some producers who sold about 2,000% of a play and try to get a play so bad it would lose money, and they’ll collect 20 times as much as the play lost, and net 19 times. Only the play turned out to be a yuge success.
Trump played to angry white men (who dominate the Republican primaries, but not the general election). To win the election, Trump must win at least a large minority of women, African-Americans, and Hispanics. But Trump has doubled down on his promises to bring back prosperity to those angry white men.
It’s not clear that there is anything Trump could say that would convince that large minority of women, African-Americans, and Hispanics to vote for him.
And the MSM is doing all it can to support Secretary Redbeard, who has promised, as soon as she takes office, to send US peacekeepers to liberate Syria and Russia from their evil dictators.
I’ve often compared Trump’s business strategy to The Producers, but he played it better than Wilder & Mostel. He did manage to pocket a yuge profit from bankrupt businesses.
One wonders whether he’d do the same for the US.
You make a strong argument for returning the franchise to property-owning white men only.
(Wait. Is he serious…?)
Regardless of how the debates really turn out, the Trump backers will insist he won ‘cuz zingers. I think candidates’ debates should be scored as a formal debate – when somebody dodges a question (and they all do) then they lose the point (assuming their opponent actually does answer the question)
“… and that concludes the Presidential Debates for tonight, with the candidates tied zero to zero”
Trump needs to appeal to the 82% of people who have so far NOT voted for HRC or Trump. There are far, far more independents who have always sat out elections because they “don’t matter” or “they don’t care what people think anyway”. And these people aren’t wrong. Now, for the first time, they have a chance to throw a brick through the window. Who’s to say that’s not a better choice than HRC and WWIII?
All elections should have an option for ‘none of the above.’ Should that choice garner more votes than any candidate, the candidates should be disqualified and new ones nominated.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Two very simple reasons HRC could lose the presidency.
1. Third-party candidate. In a squeaker situation where both candidates are near the 270 victory mark, a third-party candidate winning just one state could drop the whole thing into “it goes to Congress.” Trump will lose. And HRC will lose.
2. The media supports HRC. Look at how the media’s doing though. With the exception of a few minor outcroppings of quality, most of the media is a shambling embarrassment. It’s like the drunk uncle who starts to say something at Christmas and then wanders off into a story about something else and then just finally starts snoring.
The media seems almost shrilly over-supportive of HRC. Their attacks on Donald Trump are wholly unprecedented. I have never see the media attack a candidate like they’ve attacked Donald Trump. Ever. And they aren’t doing the same to HRC, even though they should — put it this way: if Trump had a Foundation that took money from journalists in order for those journalists to interview Trump, there would be blood all over the place from editors ripping heads off those journalists. George Stephanopolous does it and, well, you know, pencils have erasers, certainly not “checkbook journalism,” not let us cut to Chelsea Clinton’s hard-hitting story on whatever she came up with for $600K a year. …
I think HRC is going to get her ass handed to her on the debates because Trump will simply have to memorize one fact: Hillary is a liar. He’ll say that over and over, and he’ll be right. She simply never says “yes” or “no.” And voters will remember that.
While it’s true that the media are hammering on Trump’s stupid people tricks, that gives Trump free publicity while his supporters see those same tricks as just really, really smart. Of course, his supporters have difficulty counting to twenty-one with their pants on, but their vote inexplicably counts just as much as yours.
Also keep in mind that HRC winning the election isn’t enough. She’ll have to a House AND a Senate that both have a Democratic majority (and that majority will have to be sufficient to override any opposition from the Republicans, meaning you can’t just have DINOs).
Want to know what else? There’s NOTHING in the rules that says the Supreme Court has to have nine justices. The Republicans can and will block pretty much anyone HRC nominates to that position unless there are enough Democrats to force everything through. And when Ginsberg finally leaves (by retirement or by dying), that will resolve any voting ties, won’t it?
So let’s look at the risk HRC’s election poses. She will be blocked up and down, night and day, on everything. The Supreme Court will drop to a 4-3 decision on all cases (and that will not be favorable to the liberal side).
So let’s watch HRC become the first and last woman to be U.S. president because after the complete disaster that her first term will be (assuming she isn’t run of office by the Republicans) no other woman will have a chance in hell.
That’s what HRC winning means.
Agreed, an HRC admin would be A Bad Thing.
The way that the GOP is fracturing is certain to affect the upcoming congressional races. Hillary may well wind up with a nominal majority of nominal democrats. Hopefully the RINOs and DINOs will ‘get the message’ of when their former supporters vote for Stein and Johnson instead of who their party tells them to vote for. (I also hope to win the lottery and wake up beside Scarlett Johansson.)
The GOPranoes are rallying their minions by asking “What it Hillary nominates a liberal to the supreme court?” (“Liberal” AKA “moderate at best”) I’d be real curious to see who Trump nominated. Roy Moore? Roy Bean? John Barron?
All hail God Emperor Trump. Long may he reign. May his enemies know their unceasing hysteria, withering disappointment, ultimate defeat, and inevitable demise!
Hi Ted,
I looked into that Clinton Lolita Express link you put up (which is a dead link BTW) because that seems serious. Google search turned up a lot of Right Wing hits… the best article seemed to be Jan 2015 Gawker salacious scandal piece by Nick Bryant (“the author of The Franklin Scandal, the true story of a nationwide pedophile ring that pandered children to a cabal of the rich and powerful…”)
Looked up The Franklin Scandal on wikipedia. Turns out it was a Moral Panic in the late 80s imagining a satanic pedophile ring among the powerful in Nebraska. Perpetrators of the false allegations spent time in prison for perjury. So it’s pretty amazing this is being brought up now.
I like your work Ted, I helped fundeyour court thing. Please don’t contribute to Swift Boating rhetoric of the right that was debunked 20 years ago. Though you are correct that Trump might be able to convince some people with a modern Moral Panic.