How Hillary Wins the Debates

Fraser Seitel

It's not breaking news to note that Hillary Clinton is hurting, and not just with pneumonia. From questionable emails to reluctant press conferences to suspicious health issues, Hillary has suffered a disastrous public relations month.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, seems impervious to any sticking accusations, from Florida Attorney General bribing allegations to courting Alt Right supremacists to fully disavowing Obama birther claims. He’s the Original Teflon Don.

In an election where the prevailing public mood to both candidates is antipathy, the polls in the only states that matter — Ohio, Florida, North Carolina and a handful of others — have recently tightened, and it’s likely that by the first Hillary-Trump debate on September 26, the candidates will be in a virtual dead heat.

The four scheduled head-to-head debates, therefore, could mean the difference in who wins the election.

So what does Clinton have to do to win these debates decisively?

What she doesn’t have to do is reinforce her credentials as a policy wonk. She’s already proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that she knows far more than her fact-challenged opponent about everything from the global dangers of radical Wahhabism to the economic and social challenges of inner cities to the conundrum of the Syrian refugee crisis. (She even knows where Aleppo is!)

So, Hillary’s knowledge base isn’t at issue; which means that she doesn’t have to, as reports suggest, prepare furiously for her debate showdown with Trump. Indeed, over-preparation for someone whose policy knowledge is so indisputably superior to her opponent’s but whose physical stamina is increasingly questioned is a real mistake. And so is relying for debate prep support on the scores of “advisors” who surround her.

Rather than being weighted down by briefing books and confused by too many well-meaning helpers, Hillary should focus on four simple goals to triumph in the debates with the Donald.

First, refuse to play defense

The Trump strategy will be to keep his opponent off kilter by pressing her on defending the Obama record on terrorism, health care, immigration and the rest. Trump needs to keep the focus on her so that he doesn’t have to address policy. Mrs. Clinton shouldn’t let him getaway that easily.

Rather, she should adopt an approach of answering the Trump challenge quickly and succinctly and then turn the spotlight on him, demanding specifics on whatever topic is being discussed.

This strategy depends on Hillary, as Archie Bunker used to say, “stifling herself” on policy elaboration. There’s no need to elaborate, but the more she presses Trump on his lack of specificity — or even his lack of the specificity listed on his website — the better she will do. And that also suggests that she must …

Second, come back hard

There’s little more impressive to viewers or voters than a candidate who appears unscripted and able to think on his or her feet. Indeed, one of Trump’s great assets is that, until recently, he was unafraid to speak his mind and was rarely scripted. Hillary, on the other hand, is often accused of being robotic in heavily scripted public appearances. She should flip that script in the debates.

Trump says a lot of things that are false, but rarely do interviewers challenge him (see Matt Lauer). In the debates, Clinton should become a rhetorical cop and call her opponent out whenever she knows he’s on thin ice. She should do this in the form of questions and address him directly, for instance.

“How precisely will you get Mexico to pay for your wall? And what happens if, as Mexico’s president has already said, they refuse?”

“How will you go about flushing out the illegal immigrants you want gone; how will you pay for all this; and will you send back their children as well?”

“What exactly is your ‘secret plan’ for defeating ISIS, and how much will that cost in terms of taxpayer money and young American lives?”

Hillary’s broad knowledge of policy should provide the wherewithal instantly to bat back Trump’s half answers with questions that expose his lack of knowledge of the issues and lack of preparedness for the job.

Third, seek out reverse sound bites

Hillary’s advisors will stock their fighter with pithy, overly-rehearsed sound bites, which traditionally she has delivered with all the subtlety of a J.J. Watt quarterback sack.

It’s all gotten too formulaic and traditional and hasn’t appeared to offset predominant feelings that Hillary is too wooden and programmed. So, here again, she should aim for something different.

Specifically, she should use her counter punching to try to trap Trump into committing embarrassing rhetorical gaffes for which he is notorious, especially when baited. That means pushing her opponent into unconventional and uncomfortable areas, particularly when the Lester Holts refuse to do so. For example:

“What’s your reaction to Colin Powell calling you a ‘disgrace?’”

“Do you think your advisor Chris Christie did, in fact, know about the George Washington bridge closures, as the government contends?”

“Do you think your friend Vladimir Putin was telling the truth when he denied knowing anything about the hacking of U.S. private information”

Such aggressive, gloves-off probing would be something rarely seen in presidential debates and some would characterize it as “un-Hillary like.” But Mrs. Clinton knows more than Trump, which helps her be a better debater than an opponent who knows little and has shown a wariness of exposing that knowledge gap in a debate format.

Besides, with momentum shifting to Trump, Hillary has to pull out all the stops. And that also means …

Play the sympathy card

This is always tricky, especially for one with so much baggage, who has inexplicably become a multi-millionaire while spending most of her life in government service.

On the other hand, Hillary’s coughing spells, pneumonia bout and swan dive off the curb at the 9/11 ceremonies suggest she is certainly not in peak condition and is, therefore, vulnerable.

She should use that “vulnerability” to her advantage by reminding viewers every time Trump ad hominems her on her health or stamina or strength that she, personally “can take the abuse” because she has been in the ring a long time. But she should do so calmly, without a trace of rancor, concerned only “for the message such condescending comments leave with all the men and women and children taught to respect others and practice the golden rule.”

Such radical tactics as these — all admittedly counter-Hillary in approach — could help Clinton not only triumph in the debates but immediately reverse the negative trajectory into which her campaign has fallen.

* * *

Fraser P. Seitel has been a communications consultant, author and teacher for 40 years. He is the author of the Prentice-Hall text The Practice of Public Relations, now in its 12th edition, and co-author of Rethinking Reputation and Idea Wise. He may be reached directly at [email protected].