Your Basic Needs: Food, Shelter and The TRUTH
The Three Things Trump has to Learn From the First Debate
Sparks flew at Hofstra University last night as Donald Trump clashed with Hillary Clinton for the first time in this seemingly eternal general election cycle. The Republican nominee came out on the offensive, bashing Clinton for her support of NAFTA and her flip flop on TPP. He seemed measured for the first ten minutes, composed and ready to strike back at whatever Clinton had for him. This Trump was very similar to the one we have seen in front of the teleprompter, aggressive yet focused. Clinton, on the other hand, came out lifeless and unprepared for Trump's unconventional style. This pace continued for the first third of the debate, with Trump comfortably pushing his message over the top of Clinton's stock liberal talking points. As the night wore on, however, things began to change. With a little help from liberal Moderator Lester Holt, Clinton was able to go on the offensive. Trump did manage to effectively parry some things but often let raw emotion get the best of him, leading to a strong finish for Clinton and putting a damper on an otherwise successful night for the Trump campaign. In my eyes, the debate was an even draw with each candidate having moments of dominance throughout. This event in and of itself wasn't necessarily all that important considering neither candidate made any fatal mistakes, but there were some takeaways from last night the Trump team needs to be sure to understand going forward into the second debate.
1. He can't take the bait
Trump needs to understand when to strike back and when to just take the punch. When Clinton hits him on tax returns, he needs to go right to emails and pound it into the ground. He almost pulled this off last night and even landed a good line, but his explanation of his tax situation was too long winded to be anything but marginally effective. Clinton also mentioned the loan he got from his father and several of the lawsuits he faced as a business owner. Neither of these things are winning arguments for her, but she knew it would get under his skin, and it did. He needs to know when to fight back, when to let it slide and when to point out the utter hypocrisy in Clinton making character arguments. The essence of her strategy is going to involve getting him to show his temper and he needs to be able to stop himself from going off on tangents about things that don't matter to voters. The more time he spends defending himself over matters of irrelevance, the more unfit for office he appears to the undecided crowd he is after.
2. He needs to be on the look-out for gimmes
I personally expected to see more debating prowess out of Clinton. Her supposed 'policy-expertise' seemed to just take the form of vague statements. When she talks about raising the minimum wage, Trump needs to be able to explain the horrific effects that artificial wage increases have on low wage workers, and when she talks about "investing in the middle class," Trump needs to make clear that it is much easier to just let the middle class keep the money they earn. None of this requires in-depth knowledge, just a common sense understanding of economic cause and effect. When Clinton made the outrageous claim that the 2008 recession was caused by tax cuts, he should have been all over that. Policy aside, Trump missed some serious opportunities to shine a light on Clinton's moral shortfalls. Clinton audaciously bragged about testifying in front of Congress for 11 hours, and Trump seemed to just completely miss it. The hearing that she was referring to was on Benghazi, where she let four Americans die. He absolutely has to pounce on this. It may not be nice or pretty, but the Republicans didn't nominate Trump so that he could pat her on the back. They nominated him because they thought he would be the most effective at throwing her corruption back in her face, and last night he failed to do that. The Clinton Foundation was never mentioned and the server scandal didn't receive the attention that it deserved. If Trump wants to win, he has to keep his ears pinned back for these golden opportunities.
3. He has to anticipate moderator bias
Last night, Lester Holt made a habit of fact-checking Trump but failed to do so with Clinton, and it is certainly not because everything she said was true. The idea of moderator fact-checking seems great in theory, but it seldom works fairly or correctly. Aren't the candidates supposed to fact-check each other during a debate anyway? Besides this, the bias in the questioning was blatant. Holt asked about Trump's comments on women, his tax returns and the birtherism nonsense, but failed to bring up Benghazi or the Clinton Foundation. I have never given enough thought to Lester Holt to form an opinion on the man, and I can't entirely blame him for his performance after the proverbial lashing Matt Lauer received for treating Trump and Clinton as equals. However, Trump has to anticipate this and be able to bring these topics into play on his own. Clinton's actions regarding Benghazi are indefensible, and it would be easy to put her back on her heels with that topic in play. When the moderator gets testy, Trump has to be able to put them in their place without coming across as rude. In fact, it would be a great opportunity for him to land blows on the elitist mainstream media and tap into public discontent, which is the fuel Trump runs on.
I will be shocked if the scientific post-debate polls look much different than they did last week, but solid performances by Trump in the October debates could be enough to push him over the edge in many of the tight swing states he needs. This is not a given, however, as he needs to be able to learn from his mistakes and expect a more confident Hillary Clinton out of the gate next time. These three tidbits aren't everything, as his body language needs to improve as does his policy knowledge, but fixing just these things will carry him to victory. Last night he showed that he has the capability to go toe to toe with her and win. Now he just has to learn to sustain it.
And now for your additional voting pleasure:
Go Back
1. He can't take the bait
Trump needs to understand when to strike back and when to just take the punch. When Clinton hits him on tax returns, he needs to go right to emails and pound it into the ground. He almost pulled this off last night and even landed a good line, but his explanation of his tax situation was too long winded to be anything but marginally effective. Clinton also mentioned the loan he got from his father and several of the lawsuits he faced as a business owner. Neither of these things are winning arguments for her, but she knew it would get under his skin, and it did. He needs to know when to fight back, when to let it slide and when to point out the utter hypocrisy in Clinton making character arguments. The essence of her strategy is going to involve getting him to show his temper and he needs to be able to stop himself from going off on tangents about things that don't matter to voters. The more time he spends defending himself over matters of irrelevance, the more unfit for office he appears to the undecided crowd he is after.
2. He needs to be on the look-out for gimmes
I personally expected to see more debating prowess out of Clinton. Her supposed 'policy-expertise' seemed to just take the form of vague statements. When she talks about raising the minimum wage, Trump needs to be able to explain the horrific effects that artificial wage increases have on low wage workers, and when she talks about "investing in the middle class," Trump needs to make clear that it is much easier to just let the middle class keep the money they earn. None of this requires in-depth knowledge, just a common sense understanding of economic cause and effect. When Clinton made the outrageous claim that the 2008 recession was caused by tax cuts, he should have been all over that. Policy aside, Trump missed some serious opportunities to shine a light on Clinton's moral shortfalls. Clinton audaciously bragged about testifying in front of Congress for 11 hours, and Trump seemed to just completely miss it. The hearing that she was referring to was on Benghazi, where she let four Americans die. He absolutely has to pounce on this. It may not be nice or pretty, but the Republicans didn't nominate Trump so that he could pat her on the back. They nominated him because they thought he would be the most effective at throwing her corruption back in her face, and last night he failed to do that. The Clinton Foundation was never mentioned and the server scandal didn't receive the attention that it deserved. If Trump wants to win, he has to keep his ears pinned back for these golden opportunities.
3. He has to anticipate moderator bias
Last night, Lester Holt made a habit of fact-checking Trump but failed to do so with Clinton, and it is certainly not because everything she said was true. The idea of moderator fact-checking seems great in theory, but it seldom works fairly or correctly. Aren't the candidates supposed to fact-check each other during a debate anyway? Besides this, the bias in the questioning was blatant. Holt asked about Trump's comments on women, his tax returns and the birtherism nonsense, but failed to bring up Benghazi or the Clinton Foundation. I have never given enough thought to Lester Holt to form an opinion on the man, and I can't entirely blame him for his performance after the proverbial lashing Matt Lauer received for treating Trump and Clinton as equals. However, Trump has to anticipate this and be able to bring these topics into play on his own. Clinton's actions regarding Benghazi are indefensible, and it would be easy to put her back on her heels with that topic in play. When the moderator gets testy, Trump has to be able to put them in their place without coming across as rude. In fact, it would be a great opportunity for him to land blows on the elitist mainstream media and tap into public discontent, which is the fuel Trump runs on.
I will be shocked if the scientific post-debate polls look much different than they did last week, but solid performances by Trump in the October debates could be enough to push him over the edge in many of the tight swing states he needs. This is not a given, however, as he needs to be able to learn from his mistakes and expect a more confident Hillary Clinton out of the gate next time. These three tidbits aren't everything, as his body language needs to improve as does his policy knowledge, but fixing just these things will carry him to victory. Last night he showed that he has the capability to go toe to toe with her and win. Now he just has to learn to sustain it.
Considering that Hillary Clinton, from the recently concluded email investigation, is charged with gross negligence, dereliction of duty, was recommended that she lose her security clearance, while pathologically lying to congress, the press and the American People; and even though she was not referred for indictment because she is a Clinton: Will you?
12.84% Vote for Hillary
76.65% Vote for The Donald
10.51% Vote for none of the above
257 total vote(s) Voting has Ended!
What should be the priority of the Federal Government after the "Pulse" massacre: Should we turn our attention toward destroying, earadicating ISIS as Candidate Trump suggests, or, as Democrats' President Obama suggests, broaden our efforts to effect stricter Gun Control laws to limit "Gun Violence?"
83.78% After many years of trying to degrade and contain the murderous ISIS, we should make it the nation's policy to destroy ISIS immediately.
6.08% Gun Violence in America can be eliminated by limiting access to guns for all American citizens.
10.14% I don't care either way; I just live here.
148 total vote(s) Voting has Ended!
Comments
|
Stan Deatherage said:
( September 28th, 2016 @ 11:42 pm )
Excellent analogy as well Ted.
|
|
The split screen was an excellent presentation and ignoring Holt's questions made it nearly perfect. Both teach us to be thick skinned. Newsmen should not be moderators.
|
|
|
I've said earlier that Donald J. Trump had a terrible debate night, but, I come from a position of someone who knows how to debate, and still would have prepared extensively to deliver a terrible blow to the political body of L. Hillary, who is not that effective of a debater. So, one should be able to understand why I was immeasurable frustrated when Trump did not step up to his unworthy opponent, and knock her out.
Having said all of that, Lester Holt, who may have appeared even handed in the debate, was biased, and did have his own "Candy Crowley moment", where he made an assertion ("stop and frisk is unconstitutional") that was patently false, and then asked Trump to debate a wrong assertion, which showed that he (Holt) may have been far more unprepared for the debate than newcomer Trump. In the Democrats' Group Think exercise that Trump is a terrible liar, where one of the lies was that he said Lester Holt was a Democrat, I think that Mr. Trump deserves an apology from the Liberals and RINOs that made that claim. Trump is right; did not lie. Irrespective of any voter registration, Lester Holt is a Democrat, and he more than proved it on that debate night. So, call me a liar too. But, don't do it to my face. You might not enjoy the outcome. |
|
Careful Ryan, you are in danger of becoming a principled and practical political partisan. That will make you the kind of voter that our founders envisioned in the creation of this country. That is not a criticism but a tribute to your analysis. Politics is a cheer-leading sport while governing is an on the field event. In a game of X and O's we sometimes get lost in watching the pretty girls on the sideline instead of the three yards and a cloud of dust on the field.
The cheerleaders are there to keep the crowd enthusiastic but the coaches are there to keep the players focused on the game plan. However, the players are the ones who play the game. Your analysis is spot on and hopefully there are those in the Trump camp who can help him with both the perception and authenticity of his positions. I did not watch the debate or the after game analysis for the same reason that I do not contemplate my life had I not been born. Some events impede any speculation of what if. I have already made my decision and have left the stadium. I encourage you to become a player in the game, then eventually a coach. There will be plenty of cheerleaders as needed but "Teddy R" gave us the best advice about being in the arena and you are well on your way to making that difference. Keep up the good work and don't lose the faith. Thanks for indulging an old man in the wee hours of the morning with too many metaphors and sports allusions on his mind. |
|
|
Outstanding analogy Ryan. Thanks for your sober response to such a weird evening.
All I can add is: Maybe, we'll get'em next time. |
| Lester Holt’s Plan to Rig Presidential Debate for Hillary Clinton Leaked | Editorials, Op-Ed & Politics | Crime may Become Election Issue |
Home
Contact
About
Service Rates
Privacy Policy
Follow on Facebook
Subscribe to Newsletters
Rss Feed
Keywords
Eastern NC Now & ENC NOW © Copyright 1998-2024 All Rights Reserved.
