Debating is a skill. It is not, however a skill set needed or even useful to an elected President. We are not electing a Debater-in-Chief.
That's good for Trump. As a lawyer, former high school and college debater, and now debate coach, it is my assessment Clinton cleaned his clock on style and points. As an American citizen, it does not matter. I'm no fan of Trump. I supported Cruz. But, I think the debate did not move the needle for either candidate.
She is a professional politician. The public is tired of them all. He is a businessman offering a fresh approach as an outsider (or claims to be). No one expected much from the debate, at least from him. While he missed scores of opportunities, he did not do anything fatal. The bar was low for him and he cleared it. That's about all.
if he wants to pick up undecided voters, rather than play to his base, he must focus on some basic strategy of making the points where she is weak and taking it to her: Email scandal as true national security breach issue, Bengazi as failure of leadership and intentional deception of families of those who died, cover-ups, etc. Her attacks on 2A and her anti-LE, pro rioter stance, her alarming position on open borders and terrorism, the Iraq withdrawal debacle (move away from the red herring of whether we should have gone in, and focus on the consequences of the withdrawal). The list of failure in judgment on her watch and failed policies of Obama, Clinton and of Dems is long and ripe for picking. Just hitting hard on the low hanging fruit should be easy.
If he avoids being drawn into a defensive mode and at least stays on her record, he can do better. He does not need to be a debater, he just needs to pick and harvest the low hanging fruit. The limbs are so full they are almost breaking.
Your Privacy Choices