fyou ain’t seen nothing yet. In a Washington Post blog post titled The first debate was a defeat for Trump. Here’s why the second could be an outright massacre., he reminds us that the 2nd debate is a Town Hall, a format with which Clinton has some familiarity and a certain comfort level and for Trump neither is likely to be true.
Waldman both revisits aspects of the 1st debate and offers some of what we are hearing about the reaction — or if you prefer, denial — within the Trump campaign. He then writes as follows:
Because of the format of the second debate, Trump stands to do even worse than he did in the first debate, and Clinton could do even better.
He reviews in detail what we are hearing about what is happening within the Trump camp. He talks about how with some better focus Trump could avoid some of the pitfalls he created for himself such as he remarks about taxes (to which we could add the remarks about smart business practice taking advantage of the housing crisis). He then pivots to the difference in the format of the 2nd debate, which he argues favors Clinton.
I will not go through all that he offers in support of Waldman’s argument, because I do think you should read the entire piece.
The town hall with questions from ordinary voters often leads to much less predictable questions, which as Waldman notes
often raise issues that haven’t been discussed much in the campaign, and can do so from unusual angles. That favors a candidate whose understanding of policy is not only deep but broad — in other words, someone who can give a lengthy exegesis on the Affordable Care Act, but who could also offer a few coherent sentences on the Law of the Sea Treaty if it were necessary. We know which candidate that describes.
It is also a format that creates a different dynamic. Waldman notes that Trump and his campaign have made clear that the Republican nominee is itching to attack Mrs. Clinton on a very personal level, just as he keeps attacking Alicia Machado. He then notes
It’s one thing to do that when you’re talking to Bill O’Reilly or calling in to Fox & Friends, but just picture the cameras picking up the shocked and disgusted faces of women in the debate audience as he launches some of those insults.
Waldman also points out the importance of connecting with the voters asking the question. He goes back to the 1992 Town Hall (the first) where a woman asked a very confusing question about the deficit with which George H. W. Bush struggled, but Bill Clinton walked over to her and asked her to say what it meant to her, operating in his well-known “I feel your pain” mode. He then tells us about Mrs. Clinton
What you may not realize is that while Hillary Clinton gets a lot of criticism for not being a natural performer and not being good at delivering a speech, this kind of exchange — between her and one voter, where she can make a connection with that person and relate their particular question to broader concerns — is something she’s really, really good at.
As an example of that he offers a video of a question a Rabbi asked during the primary to which Clinton gave a thoughtful answer. I would think there are far better examples. In so many meetings with groups of people, when someone begins to tell a personal story, Hillary often goes over and hugs them. She definitely makes eye contact, often reaches out to touch the person. Remember, Trump is not comfortable with touch, and often turns to an aide for wipes after shaking hands (and I think if there were ever video of him doing that immediately after shaking the hand of an African-American or a Latino, it would be devastating).
After the clip of the Rabbi, Waldman points out how engaging and connected Clinton appears. As for Trump:
Could Donald Trump answer a question like that one without coming off as a complete jackass? Or answer a series of questions from individual citizens about things that matter deeply to them in a way that makes it appear that he genuinely cares about them? Can he stand up in front of one person, look them in the eye for longer than a few seconds, and communicate some measure of empathy?
Clinton is very experienced in personal connections with voters in small groups. Trump is not, and rarely comes out from behind his podium to even walk a rope line. Waldman adds
But it’s more than lack of practice — it’s just not who he is. Whatever Trump’s talents, he’s not a people person. You don’t watch him talking to an ordinary Joe and say, “That guy really cares.”
That leads to a concluding paragraph with which I strongly agree, and which I will offer in a moment.
As I write this, I am listening to his spokesman Jason Miller desperately trying to spin on Meet the Press Daily and getting challenged on everything by Chuck Todd. I don’t think they will change their preparation. Which is why I so agree with these words:
All of that means that at the second debate Clinton will be right in her element, and Trump will be even farther out of his. Even if he works hard to prepare, it will be difficult for him to do much better than he did the first time around. From what we’re hearing, he could be headed for an outright debacle.