Tags: 2016 Presidential Debates | Donald Trump | Hillary Clinton | deal | debate | email | foundation

Trump Must Hit Hillary Harder

Trump Must Hit Hillary Harder


By Tuesday, 27 September 2016 05:48 PM Current | Bio | Archive

“Most people are surprised at the way I work. I play it very loose. I don’t carry a briefcase. I try not to schedule too many meetings. I leave my door open. You can’t be imaginative or entrepreneurial if you’ve got too much structure. I prefer to come to work each day and just see what develops.”

That’s how Donald Trump described himself on page one of his iconic business best-seller, “The Art of the Deal.”

That paragraph ran through my mind as I watched Trump defensively parry Hillary Clinton’s assaults in the first presidential debate at Hofstra University.

Trump played it very loose. He had no agenda. He reacted to Clinton and to the moderator, NBC’s Lester Holt, often well, sometimes not.

On the other hand, Clinton was prepared, scripted, and equipped with an agenda — a flawed agenda. And, with her abysmal record and documented untrustworthiness, Trump could have beaten her handily — not just slightly.

Trump knows that, even in a deal, one must prepare an agenda and specific objectives. Otherwise, he cannot excel and prevail.

A debate is not a deal. Deals are conducted in private. Presidential debates are held in public, for the public, about the public. One does not show up to such a venue to see what develops. There’s too much at stake.

If Trump expects to win the presidency, he must learn the art of the debate. Winging it is not a part of that art. Neither is deference.

Trump addressed his opponent as Secretary Clinton, while she called him Donald. By doing so, he put himself at a disadvantage. Call her Hillary.

Hillary Clinton is completely predictable. Trump could have taken advantage of that. At best, he tied or slightly edged her, according to most post-debate polls.

Holt’s first question to both candidates: How will you create jobs to put more money into American workers’ pockets?

Ms. Clinton, who never has created a product or job in her life, began by listing her favorite big-government programs. She promised to raise the minimum wage, make the rich pay more taxes, and compel corporations to share profits with their employees. Nothing new.

Moreover, when waxing enthusiastic about her intended government largesse and tyranny, under the guise of creating jobs, she liberally applied the term “investment.”

Newsflash: Governments don’t invest; they tax, spend, waste, and control. Only individuals and corporations invest.

The more government taxes, spends, wastes, and controls, the less individuals and corporations can invest: they won’t have the capital and freedom to do so.

Hillary’s solutions, mirroring those of Barack Obama, will kill jobs and put less money into American workers’ pockets. Trump could have and should have jumped all over that. He didn’t.

He wasted precious time skewering firms that export jobs and manufacturing plants — to escape high taxes and oppressive regulations — instead of promptly and succinctly pledging to lower taxes and slash regulations.

When Holt asked Trump how he would create 25 million jobs, he had no short, crisp answer. Excoriating NAFTA as the worst deal ever negotiated bores the audience: they don’t even know what it is.

Trump also didn’t explain how Obamacare has killed jobs. Americans, both employers and employees, understand this very well.

The secret to successful branding is getting the audience to react to, remember, and repeat one’s words. Long, nebulous answers defeat that objective.

Trump wasn’t prepared to nail Clinton on Benghazi, her dubious foundation, becoming wealthy on a government salary, and likely violating the Espionage Act with her email server — especially while responding to Holt’s cybersecurity question.

Finally, if Hillary continues to level charges of misogyny and financial misdeeds against Trump, he can’t rejoin with meek, off-the-cuff explanations.

Going forward, Trump must be ready, willing, and able to name Bill Clinton’s aggrieved women, and Hillary’s complicity in enabling him and destroying them, and enumerate easy-to-remember examples of Hillary selling access to the U.S. government while she was secretary of state.

Trump, most likely, is now aware that creating and executing a powerful, unforgettable agenda is the key to nailing a presidential debate — and that winging it is the kiss of death.

The good news: Despite everything, Hillary did not destroy Trump at Hofstra, and that elevates his stature.

Trump has two more opportunities to come back, big-league. The question is, Will he?

Marc Rudov is a branding adviser to CEOs, and is the author of "Be Unique or Be Ignored: The CEO's Guide to Branding." He is the founder of MarcRudov.com. For more of his reports, Go Here Now.




© 2021 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Despite everything, Hillary did not destroy Trump at Hofstra, and that elevates his stature. Trump has two more opportunities to come back, big-league. The question is, Will he?
deal, debate, email, foundation, server
Tuesday, 27 September 2016 05:48 PM
Newsmax Media, Inc.

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

America's News Page
© Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved