Predicting the Debates

In a few days, we will have the first of three presidential debates, between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.  As the polling, such as we can assess it across the various media, shows an even race, one might think that the debates could make a big difference.

And they might, depending on what outcomes may occur.

There are, of course, different kinds of outcomes.  One or the other candidate (or both) could have a really good debate, answering the questions presidentially, saying some good things, appearing like someone you could vote for.  Similarly, one or the other candidate (or both) could give a memorably bad answer to something, whether a question that someone should be able to do better on, or to some unimportant "gotcha" question ("Can you name the capital city of Togo", or "Who is the eighth avatar of Vishnu" -- that sort of thing).

Most likely, a truly unbiased observer would walk away thinking that nothing important had happened, that both candidates' supporters would walk away thinking their candidate had "won", and the polls would not be moved.  After all, that's the typical outcome; the rare one is a debate such as the one where Mitt Romney crushed an unprepared and bumbling Barack Obama in 2012.  And we know how that election ended.

Remembering that the electorate pretty much already has an unalterable understanding of Hillary Clinton, it would seem that you could forecast this only in terms of her opponent.  That is, the first debate is very likely a test only of Donald Trump (i.e., Hillary will be so predictably "herself" that unless she faints mid-debate, little she says or does will be memorable).  Either he does well, or he doesn't.

So let's ask ourselves, what does "does well" mean?

Not to invoke the soft bigotry of low expectations, but I don't think the bar is really that high for Trump.  If he is able to provide relatively reasonable answers to all the questions, and rationalize his views and his approaches, he does well.  If he is able to avoid getting baited by Hillary into anger or excessive verbal force, he does well.  If he is able to minimize the platitudes and the "Trust me, we'll make America great again" answers and actually keep with the plans, he does well.

Most of all, if he is able to do the above and convey the sense that his team -- the people he would lean on for Cabinet posts and advisory positions -- will be strong, well-respected people and that he will take their advice, he wins.  That is a really undervalued thing, but remember that Reagan's success was in part from the fact that he leaned on experts, debated their advice, and then acted on principle.

For Trump to convey that approach is to temper his own perceived strength and passion with faith in good advice, and that's actually a good mellowing of his perceived ego.

Either way, it will be instructive (perhaps) to see how the media respond afterward.  Hillary will, as I said, be so predictable that it will be hard for her minions in the press to expand that anticipated performance into wonderfulness.  Hillary is, of course, not very wonderful, and there are 50,000 emails found and 30,000 missing ones attesting to that, but I don't expect the moderators to press any of that stuff with her.

I'll watch it, certainly, although I suspect that my interpretation of the results may be slightly at odds with the next-day reporting.

I do know that, whatever happens, it ain't changing my vote.

Copyright 2016 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here?  There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist."  Sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.