A Super Bowl sized audience is expected to watch the first Presidential debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton on Monday night. As the polls tighten and we find ourselves less than 50 days from election day, this first debate is a key milestone and potential tide-turner in what feels, at least to me, like the longest Presidential campaign ever.
Like many of you, the mind-bending entropy of this campaign has left me perplexed about whether we can really hold on to any of the conventional wisdom that has defined Presidential runs up until now. Nevertheless, I offer below a handful of predictions for the first debate. Let me also say that while I considered these through as objective a lens as possible, I cannot feign true neutrality. I have reservations about Clinton, but I believe Trump is wildly unfit for the Presidency, by every measure. Yet, as you can see below, this does not stop me from predicting some gains for Trump after this debate.
Prediction #1: Trump will "win" the first debate.
The media narrative about this debate, and each candidates' core behavioral tendencies have put Clinton in a really tough spot. Hillary has that extra responsibility gene we have been hearing about. She is legendary in how thoroughly she prepares for her work as a leader and policymaker. Donald, by contrast, always just wings it. If you have been following the news about debate prep, you've seen a lot of reporting on Trump's refusal to do much prep, and avoiding full simulations all together. Contrasting reports depict Clinton going full throttle on debate prep.
While I generally believe that fortune favors the prepared, in this case, the bar has been set so low for Trump and so high for Clinton, that Trump has only to achieve an average showing to exceed expectations. This positions him to come out of the debate making a valid claim that while everyone expected him to flail, he instead outperformed Clinton. Additional chest thumping and hyperbole will follow as he pushes his favorite story line about "winning".
I believe many (most?) Democrats desperately fantasize that Trump will exhibit some sort of game-ending melt down in front of 100 million viewers. As puerile and buffoonish as Trump may often be, I just don't see the game-ending part happening. If he hasn't been disqualified yet - after embracing White supremacists, mocking the disabled, attacking a Gold Star family and cultivating a bromance with America's nemesis Vladimir Putin - I think he'd have to physically assault Hillary Clinton to have his behavior impact his polls. There will undoubtedly be plenty of outrageous and vitriolic behavior from Donald. But this will only help his cause with his supporters who love him for behaving this way. Alarmingly, millions of other Americans seem to still be deciding whether this behavior disqualifies him from the Presidency.
In the old "normal" campaign archetype, this kind of performance would brand Trump as an unqualified clown and immediately cost him any chance of being elected. But it is clear to me that we have a radically new paradigm in how the electorate views campaigns. American voters have thoroughly rejected the political and campaign norms that were in effect up to our last election in 2012.
In the world of our new normal, Trump looks very clearly differentiated from the political leader archetype embodied by Clinton - and for many, refreshing because of the sharp contrasts he creates through the way he operates and how traditional politicians - who they view as having failed them - tend to operate. Clinton's strengths, in this frame of view, could look stale, or even viewed as a weakness to many voters.
To so many Americans, our political system feels like a carnival of the absurd, run by special interest groups that keep citizens from feeling like they have any control over their fates. For people who have reached this cynical low in how they view American democracy, gravitating to a carnival barker with strong demagogic tendencies like Trump, suddenly seems like a reasonable place to turn for an alternative approach.
Prediction #2: Clinton and Trump will savage each other - and third party support will grow.
Trump will set new lows in decorum as he attacks both Bill and Hillary Clinton, National Enquirer style. It will get ugly very quickly, despite Gennifer Flowers being unable to attend. Even if Hillary comes across as measured and rational to Trump's chaotic bomb thrower, expect her to do a really good job getting under Trump's skin. Clinton is a highly skilled debater and will be absolutely fearless in confronting Trump directly. To my eye, Trump is a thin-skinned narcissist who is unable to control his anger when insulted or hit with verbal slings and arrows - even really small ones. Clinton's supporters will get a lot of satisfaction seeing her have the chance to do the verbal equivalent of repeatedly punching Trump in the mouth. Trump will be his petulant, angry self in response to Clinton's well placed barbs. His supporters will love the fury of his counter-punches and it will reaffirm the "toughness" they interpret this behavior to represent. And an increasing number of undecideds, watching this mayhem unfold, will throw their hands up and decide to exit the brawl by casting a third party vote for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein.
Prediction #3: Traditional debate and moderation formats will continue their rapid death spiral.
We need a team of referees, not a moderator for the three Presidential debates this year. And not tennis referees - but teams who handle minor league hockey games or rugby matches. Trump spews lies at a speed and volume that is breathtaking. He is a well practiced bully and will talk over, or shove his way around anyone in the traditional moderator role. Clinton certainly has her own challenges with addressing direct questions with direct answers. We got a preview of how badly "moderation" works in this election with Matt Lauer talking with the candidates in the recent Town Hall described in this article in Vanity Fair. This coming debate will continue to force us to reconsider whether traditional Presidential debates and traditional debate moderation are an effective way to help the public consider candidates and their suitability for the Presidency.
Prediction #4: People will be reminded of Bush vs. Gore Presidential Debate #1.
The New York Times ran a fascinating story about the first Presidential debate between Al Gore and George W. Bush in 2000. It includes a look back by both campaign teams at debate prep, the debate itself and the aftermath. Two particular things struck me as I read this. First, Clinton is prone to slip into a trap that I call the "idiot problem" that plagues many Democrats and liberals. The trap here is assuming that one must be an idiot to support Trump (or Bush II). This simply is not true, and declaring such a thing - even tacitly - enrages everyday people who may not have college degrees, do not attend cocktail parties in NYC, DC or San Francisco - and look to values and world view, not educational pedigree to determine whether someone is qualified to be President. I believe Clinton has deep appreciation for the values and best interests of everyday working people all over the US. But her tendency to use long lists of facts to make her points, rather than to delve into values or tell illustrative stories, can make her vulnerable to confirming the way the GOP has tried to cast her - as an out-of-touch elite. Al Gore dove head first into the "idiot problem" trap in his first debate with Bush, and the article referenced above cites one aide who believes it cost him the Presidency.
In closing, I must say that as I wrote this, I was forced to question the utility of Presidential debates at all. I happen to love an alternative approach put forward by Lee Drutman, a Senior Fellow at the New America Foundation. Drutman suggests we put our Presidential candidates through crisis simulations instead of endless debates. Crisis simulations would give us far better insight into how candidates would perform leading the country and helping to lead throughout the world. I think this is a fantastic idea and is precisely the sort of disruption to politics that the American electorate wants. This would be a radical departure from American political norms. But by the time the blood sport of this particular Presidential race concludes, I think many Americans might embrace it.
