Debate Preview: Trump vs Hillary: The Championship Bout. Its possible that the election is decided on Monday

So Monday night sees the first of 3 scheduled Presidential debates (plus one VP debate) on the calendar for the 2016 election. Essentially any US TV debate among the two finalists of the main parties is a potential game-ender, and could dramatically change the race. Yet most often they do not change the race. This year the electorate is exceptionally well familiar with the two finalists, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump; and a remarkable number of voters have made up their minds about the two candidates. There are also two national and a third locally viable 'third party' candidate also in the race but not attending the debate Monday as none qualified the threshold in national polls prior to the debate. Yes, any debate is potentially a game-changer and could be a game-decider. Yet very rarely that happens at this level. Yet signs are strong that Monday we may indeed see that happening. So lets do a debate preview. And please, readers, do not try this at home. Leave the debate prep work to us professionals, trust me, I used to be a professional college debate coach haha... 

DA BIGGEST EVAH

First off. Audience. This is expected to be the most watched TV debate in US television history. They are expecting TV audience numbers that could be 90 million to 100 million (where about 130 million are expected to vote in the election). Could be that 75% of the actual voters are going to watch. Both as a percentage of voters and a total audience, this would break the US record. The audience is so big, that only the US professional football 'Superbowl' TV shows annually get larger audiences than that. A true national TV event. Something everybody will be talking about.

For both candidates this will be by far their biggest TV audience and opportunity of their lifetimes. Trump had a 24 million audience for one of the Republican primary debates last year. About 35 million watched his Convention speech he gave in Cleveland. His TV show, the Apprentice was only getting half that as a TV audience. Hillary's biggest audience with the Democratic primary debates was 15 million. Her peak with the Obama debates in 2008 was about 10 million and her Democratic Convention speech in Philadelphia was 33 million. Her previous tops were 26 million from 2008 when she delivered the nomination speech for Obama in Denver. For context, Hillary's Benghazi Hearings drew 16 million people to watch.

So 90 million is a MONSTER number. The only Jimmy Carter - Ronald Reagan debate in the 1980 election cycle had the current standing record at 80 million viewers. The 3-way race of 1992 with Daddy Bush, Bill Clinton and Ross Perot had 70 million. Obama's biggest debate audience was in his re-election, the first debate with Romney at 70 million. So in terms of audience reach and voter influence, if they're anywhere near 90 million, this is uncharted territory, and it could be 100 million even. And get this - half of the audience watching the debates have not paid attention to the race so far. Roughly half did not see either of the Conventions and far more than half watching Monday's TV debate have not seen one primary debate on either side. So in a way, the candidates get to make a 'first impression' to voters - very critically, to many voters who had not paid attention so far and while they may already have a preference of who to vote for, they haven't actually listened to the two candidates. And obviously this is the first time ever that both candidates stand side-by-side, answering the same questions. There have been a few instances where they spoke AFTER one another like the Commander-In-Chief forum but this is the first time they are on the same stage, and take the same questions and very importantly, the first time they get to respond to each other. It will be for both candidates the opportunity to show how they stack up. Hillary wants to be seen as clearly the only adult in the room and fully competent, plus reasonably likable; and Trump will want to be seen as Presidential not the carricature he has been in the past months.

DO DEBATES EVER MATTER?

But do debates decide elections? Most debates do not. But a few do. And they do in three types of ways. Most often, if they decide a race, its because the candidate damages himself or herself. It may be obvious in the debate itself like with Governor Oops, Rick Perry's career-ending calculation gaffe trying to count to three. Or Captain Moonbase, in how Newt Gingrich ended his career on an imagined moonbase in 2012. And it can also be revealed after the debate, that what seemed like a brilliant thing, turns out dooming you like Carly Fiorina's imaginary monsters living inside her head selling babyparts. But most political-run-ending debates are ones that the candidate him or herself does the damage. Like Gerald Ford claiming that Russia does not control Eastern Europe in 1976, or Daddy Bush looking at his watch in 1992 and not paying attention to a question from a voter in the audience.

Its less often that the debate is lost out of the dual interaction and verbal jousting but that also does happen. Most famous is the main reason Michael Dukakis lost the 1988 election against Daddy Bush. He answered a very rough hypothetical question about his wife being raped and murdered with an alarming level of cold-heartedness but then Daddy Bush able to pounce and devastate Dukakis by being the passionate one caring about supposedly his rival's wife being raped and murdered. A bad possibly deadly gaffe was turned by the rival into the end of the run. Similarly Chris Christie destroyed Marco Rubio in the primary race this time, by accusing Rubio of not answering quesitons but just repeating his stump speech and in the very next response Rubio did that again - to which Christie, the fast wit - noticed and pounced. Destroying Rubio and his chances.

But when does a candidate WIN via a debate? That almost never happens unless the rival is the one making the mistake. You kind of can't win a debate, you can only lose it. So look at the 2012 first debate with Romney and Obama. That debate was won by Romney, barely, but not because he was better than Obama, it was because Obama mailed it in, wasn't prepared, wasn't on his game, and Romney was. While only a marginal victory at best - because Obama was supposed to win, Romney got a huge bounce in the polling that gained him 5 points and brought a dead campaign back into parity and momentarily even ahead of Obama. Obama spent the next two months fighting back from a strong lead he had just prior to that debate. Yes Romney was 'on' and sharp, but he didn't win the debate, Obama lost it.

It is very rare for a candidate to actually use a debate to clearly 'win' but that also happens. We saw it in the 2012 primary race with Newt Gingrich's fight with the moderator. But while we have had many memorable moments from Dan Quayle trying to be Kennedy to Trump and Rubio arguing about penis size, actual debates have VERY rarely produced a winner who also gained in the polls significantly afterwards. The gains have mostly happened if someone totally collapsed in the debate, like say John McCain's lost uncle 'where is the bathroom' moment in 2008.

So while its super-high power television drama, live. It rarely gives a chance to actually 'win' a debate that also then produces a significant bounce in the polling. Those happen very rarely but they do happen. And more likely is an exchange where one stumbles and the other is fast to catch it and gain (out of the other party's stumble). And the most common actual measured result is a spontaneous solo failure by one candidate, that the other(s) did not influence. And most often, debates produce no real change in the race. So with that, its most likely that after Monday the race is essentially unchanged.

AGAIN THE WOMAN HAS IT HARDER

Secondly there is a grading by the curve, an expectation game that introduces a different standard for the two finalists. Hillary Clinton is a master politician and debater, she's done 37 televised live-audience debates in her life - its by far the most of any politician in history in the USA. 13 of them are of the one-on-one type that we will see on Monday which is also the record. Hillary's first televised debate was in year 2000 in her run for the Senate, and she was of course already prepping with her husband Bill for his debates back in 1992. Trump never debated on TV before last year and only did 10 debates in total (skipping out on one this cycle) and none of Trump's debates were the one-on-one type that we see now on Monday. Hillary is a policy wonk and spent decades in or around government. Trump is the least prepared candidate to ever run for President by one of the two major parties. Everybody expects Hillary to be sharp and poised and knowledgeable, she won't get any 'points' for doing that but Trump is not supposed to know things, he'll get some good will simply for not falling on his nose. So in anything near a tied result, Hillary loses and Trump wins. For Hillary to get out of Monday deemed the winner of the debate, she has to soundly beat Trump (so Trump has to collapse).

HOW DO YOU WIN A DEBATE

So how do you win a debate? You don't. You can't. Its a myth. There is no such thing as winning a TV debate for President. The image is that a brilliant orator like Obama or Reagan can speak to the TV camera and 'win' the debate. That is utter bullshit. It doesn't happen that way. The other guy can LOSE the debate but look at Obama and Hillary in 2008. They went against each other 26 times. TWENTY SIX debates. And neither defeated the other. The biggest gaffe was Obama in one debate saying to Hillary "You're likable enough." That was it. Twenty six times two excellent debaters took on each other and neither ever landed anything near a knockout punch. If both are competent speakers and know their own material and are well prepared and have practised, there is no way to win a political TV debate. You can lose it dozens of ways but there is no way to force a victory out of a Presidential television debate in its modern format. You may come out a bit ahead of the other if you had a good day and the other one had a bad day but no, you can't get a victory out of a debate. Its not a contest of who can make the audience hearts sing. Now its possible to have a canned speech, perfectly prepped for the end, and steal some points, like Rick Santorum the first time he told that story of how his dad was digging liberty for his family, with those big hands, in that coal mine. Or how Reagan asked in 1980, are you better off today than you were four years ago. If you think you are, then vote for the other guy. But that is a gimmick of good speech-writing and delivery of a canned pitch. That is not how debates work when its two professionals who BOTH have a good planned practised ending speech. Then one is slighly better than the other. Like again, Obama vs Hillary in 2008. Not one knock-out punch when two heavyweight champions went against each other 26 separate times that year.

No. You win only if the other guy stumbles. It can be a clear gaffe, one that is obvious to all watching, like say One, Two, Oops. But it might be a gaffe that few even caught, that is only noticed after the debate, on 'video replay'. What did Ted Cruz just do? He promised to eliminate 5 departments but didn't he say one of them twice? That kind of gaffe that is only caught after the debate, will usually not end the run - see Carly Fiorina's delusional monsters inside her head. Because those who bother to read the 'analysis' of any debates or watch the after-shows with the expert panels, are a tiny fraction of the actual viewing audience of the debate. The third type of stumble is one that one candidate makes, and the other capitalizes on. These can be deadly, like Dukakis's wife and Daddy Bush. Or how President Obama said to Romney in the second debate "Please proceed, Governor." (Romney should have stopped right there). That debate was already won by Obama. Not because Obama delivered a winning line but because Romney went into an unforced error and Obama SAW it and underlined it. Caught it as it was happening. This is devastating. But a lucky debater and unlucky victim can lead to a TRAP. In that case the trapper, like Chris Christie, sets up the mark like Marco Rubio, who then in his speech did what Christie hope for and now Christie KNEW he had Rubio defeated.

Now what does that take? There is no amount of natural talent that gets you to that in that moment. None. It only comes from technique. Practise practise practise. Knowing your own material so well that you don't need to devote any of your mental capability to your next lines, but then to put all your analytical skill to listen for faults and errors and inconsistencies of the other speaker(s). That is debate technique. It takes YEARS to master. That is what great court-room trial lawyers practise in mock trial court battles first, and then in the actual court room. It takes YEARS to master that skill. It is also practised in academic debate (I debated at 33 tournaments competitively, won 20 trophies at the Top 50 ranked debate university, Clarion University in my college years, then coached 3 years, one at the high school level then two years professionally at the college level at St John's University, another Top 50 ranked debate university). And I've been there. If you're not prepared (enough) even if you're skilled and trained, you can't devote the brainpower to catch the other side when they fumble. Only when you are truly finely-tuned, you know YOUR side inside-out, and you know THEIR arguments inside-out, only then will you spot it, if they fumble. But you will never know beforehand IF they will fumble at all. And only if they fumble, can you capitalize. You may wait for it the whole debate and the opportunity never arises. You don't know but its the ONLY way to catch and capitalize on this one way to 'win' when the other side loses. You HAVE to be there and be prepared.

I've been there. I've debated myself in over 200 judged competitive debate rounds lasting 90 minutes each. I've done dozens of exhibition debates and hundreds and hundreds of practise debates - all judged too. I've judged competitively more than 200 debates, writing a jury decision for every one of them - plus judged again, hundreds and hundreds more practise debates for my teams, each one with a written verdict. I have seen debating. It is darned hard and to catch the other side in a mistake takes exceptional talent. Like Chris Christie or Ted Cruz showed us this season. But even past TV debate champs, Mike Huckabee the best Republican debater of 2008 or Rick Santorum, best in 2012, could not just turn it on and do it well if they weren't prepared or the field was too tough. I've seen when a debater goes into 'brain freeze'. I've seen bright people taken apart when they get humiliated by something they weren't prepared for - witness Marco Rubio and the glee Chris Christie then had in having skewered Marco.

So as a professional coach, I had some brilliant debaters (who became attorneys in New York) and some mediocre debaters (who also became attorneys in New York). But if as a coach you can have a brilliant debater who does moderate effort in prep, or a mediocre debater who puts in the extra effort to work - the hard worker will win in the end. Debate is ALWAYS about preparation. Natural-born talent ALWAYS loses to preparation over time. You can't win but you can find ways to lose. The better you are prepared, the less of a chance you can lose. And nobody in the US political world prepares more than Hillary Rodham Clinton. She was ready for the Trump 2012 Presidential Debates already in January of 2008 when we were getting to know Barack Obama. And yet, the most prepared and most practised TV debater in US political history? What is she doing this week? She has a light speaking schedule why? So she can ... PREPARE. There has never been a more important moment in Hillary's career than Monday and she knows it.

Donald Trump? Its possible, he has Roger Ailes the TV guru on his debate prep team as well as Chris Christie and Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani, its possible that Trump has secretly been running deep debate prep, read through volumes of policy documents and on his airplane trips to various speaking gigs, he's held debate prep sessions one after the other. And yeah. Who are we kidding. There is no way 70 year old lazy rich spoiled kid who has cheated his way through everything in life, has suddenly developed a work ethic. There is no way Trump has prepared enough to rival say Mitt Romney's level of the first debate of 2012. That was Romney at his best. He barely beat Obama when Obama was sleepwalking. By the second debate, when Romney was still at his best and Obama bothered to show up, Obama easily beat Romney. And Hillary beat Obama in essentially every debate THEY had in 2008. No. Trump cannot be roughly equal in debate prep and skill now, suddenly, to Hillary. That is impossible. A random Republican career politician could, if working really hard, yes. That Donald J Trump we've seen the past year? He certainly ain't prepping hard for the most important day of his political career. He thinks he can wing it. He thinks its like the debates with Ted Cruz and John Kasich. He thinks because Drudge online polls said Trump won in those debates, that he actually won, haha.

Hillary has been here before. She's seen how the debates change from a wide field to a two-person debate. She knows you can never over-prepare. She knows every one of her own positions inside-out. She has studied Trump's alleged positions better than Trump knows them. And she has run countless practitse sessions with several Trump stand-ins who have attempted various 'personas' of what type of Trump might show up. And they've practised her dealing with every question imaginable, and essentially every imaginary thing Trump might say. Every one of those practises has been taped onto video, and run through with her coaches. And Hillary has demanded, give me more practise time. Lets do this one more time. Over at Trumpworld, its Trump whining, lets not do another practise, I know this stuff, lets do something else...

So going into Monday, the one team you want to be on, is Team Hillary. And the one team that will be holding their breaths for 120 minutes is Team Trump. Can he survive it.

SO WHAT MATTERS THEN?

You cannot manufacture a victory out of a debate. You can run well and get a tie. You can be lucky and have a bit better than a tie. That will not win you the election. But the only way the debate decides the election is if the other side stumbles (badly and obviously). And ideally, you are able to capitalize on it, live during the debate. And it has to happen in those two hours, on air. Its no use how much the judging after the debate give it for one side or the other. If it was't obvious to the 90 million watching that one side clearly won, then its a tie. It can only be a clear victory ie one side has to clearly lose the debate, else its a tie. And a tie goes to Trump.

First, its possible that Hillary has a disaster. After 37 televised political debates over 16 years and 9 in this cycle, I don't think there is much of a chance for that. But it could happen. Even master debater Ted Cruz managed to mangle his 5 departments he wanted to abolish (but nobody caught it in time to capitalize and Ted survived his gaffe).

Its possible Trump has a total breakdown of some kind. He could just say or do something vile or simply unacceptable. Remember he was bragging about his penis size in one debate. In one debate he clearly had no idea what is the nuclear triad. In a TV interview just recently he claimed that Russia is not in Crimea. At an intelligence briefing he asked three times why can't the USA use its nuclear weapons. Trump is truly capable of asinine statements - and many of those in the primary debates went untouched because most of the rivals were not astute enough to catch them - and the two best debaters who could have - Ted Cruz and Chris Christie - were in most of the debates not eager to fight with Trump. Hillary can't WAIT to pounce onto such mistakes - and be clever about it to point out how stupid and dangerous whatever it was that Trump just said, happens to be.

What Trump doesn't want - desperately doesn't want, is a Candy Crowley style fact-checking of his stupid untrue statements. Lets see how the moderator Lester Holt will handle any obvious Trump lies. Matt Lauer was crucified for letting Trump slide on his lies at the C-I-C forum. But its likely that Trump won't be fact-checked by the moderator. Many media pundits will scream about it afterwards but it would be a big assist to Trump. If he is fact-checked the right-wingers will scream the debate is rigged (because Hillary won't need fact-checking, she'll stay on message and on safe ground that is well on the truth side). But its likely that the only fact-checking will come from Hillary's rebuttals and she would be wise to limit those to picking a few of the juiciest attacks rather than spend the whole debate yelling 'lie lie lie'. Its a powerful weapon but Trump is such a rich target, it would lose effect by over-repetition, regardless of the fact that Trump will lie a lot.

The problem with fact-checking the rival, is that both sides can do it, and accuse the other of lying, and the random not deeply interested voter won't bother to go see who was actually correct. So those who are most 'low-hanging fruit' voters, they aren't persuaded by this method if you keep repeating it.

The devastating attack is to use a rival's words against him or her. Almost every Presidential political TV debate has had contradictions by both sides. I used to do 'serious' judging of the earlier debates just out of personal habit and technique, and yeah, Reagan, Mondale, Bush, Dukakis, Bill Clinton, Bob Dole, W Bush, Al Gore - they ALL have contradictions within a 2 hour debate. Its inevitable when you have to speak spontaneously and cannot go back to see what exactly was it you said 45 minutes ago. BUT the problem is to catch it and make an issue about it. So this was the Chris Christie and Marco Rubio situation. This was Lloyd Benson and Dan Quayle with 'you're no Kennedy'. It can be done. And when its been done by the rivals against Trump this season - several times by Cruz but also Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio - it gets under Trump's skin instantly. He HATES to have his own words quoted back at him.

Does Trump have the mental agility and debate technique to monitor Hillary's speeches throughout a two hour debate to pick up contradictions..

(sorry. I had to take a pause to laugh out loud)

Ok But Hillary yes. Gosh yes. She has that technique and is prepped to listen for it. She knows what is Trump's argument portfolio and where there are inherent contradictions in just what he proposes on the speaking trail daily. And she can then wait to see if Trump runs one such pair of arguments that are now in contradiction. Say for example, he wants open trade. But he wants tariffs on China. Or he wants to re-negotiate NAFTA with Mexico. Well those are not open trade. Its either one or the other. Trump is not forced to deal with these issues because his primary rivals pretty much abdicated their duty to attack Trump and then he's stopped talking to press other than Fox, who tread him with kid gloves.

So Trump is in a series of serious policy contradictions that he is now in a habit of selling. And he can very well go into any such contradiction in the debate. But Hillary has practised an attack on it. That ... QUOTES ... Trump. And it will make him angry. Furious. 

Now how does Trump deal with attacks? He has three favorites - he does a personal attack on the rival - a schoolyard style attack - ie attacking the person typically for physical attributes, Little Marco, Low-Energy Jeb. Or he likes to talk over the rival. Or he tries to get the audience to join him and get the audience on 'his side'.

THE INTERRUPTION GAME

Ok lets start first with the interruptions. Gosh this is what I'm MOST interested in seeing. I cannot imagine Trump having the discipline to go 2 hours without interrupting Hillary. I am like 90% certain he'll do it at some point. But the Hillary Clinton debate team has known that Trump will be doing this - for a YEAR - and been prepping in case the nominee is Trump, on how to defeat the tendency to interrupt and talk over the rival debater.

I have tried to imagine what I would advise the Hillary team, and honestly, I don't know what could work. What might be tried. How to get him to stop that, its hugely aggravating and obviously inherently unfair. He interrupts the other side - steals their time - and talks over them - so they can't be heard - and interrupts their train of thought - and interrupts the AUDIENCE's train of thought - and some will think this is 'good' and shows 'leadership' and 'strength'. (If I was running a debate as a moderator, I'd just stop immediately. Tell Trump the time he took will be taken from HIS time, and give the interrupted speaker the stolen time. It would very quickly get Trump to stop that childish and utterly disrespectful behavior, but no, of course the moderators will not do this. And the lesser cheaper way to do it would be to turn off his mike if he interrupts. They will not do that either. The only person who might be able to shut Trump up, is Hillary).

But yes. Hillary has the best debate prep professionals, who have been hired to solve Trump for a year. And have developed and TESTED methods to use. And they've no doubt run mock debates with live undecided audiences to TEST which method works best for the undecided audience, so that it won't look bad on Hillary but demolishes Trump. They KNOW he will do it. They have prepared the 'ultimate' 'shut up' method. I can't wait to see what it is.

Its possible we get kinder-gentler Trump who won't interrupt (enough) to ever see what the Hillary team came up with. Its possible that whatever they decided, at the actual moment, Hillary decides NOT TO DO IT, for whatever reason, reading the room and situation. But its HIGHLY likely its one of the things she most eagerly awaits doing. Shutting Trump up in front of 90 million voters, in style and class and definitively. Shutting up a bully. She will want to run whatever play they had prepared. And it may not work. Or inspite of it, Trump may still come back and continue interrupting.

BUT. Its possibly the debate-deciding and even plausibly the election-deciding moment. Hillary knows that its coming and they've had a team of professionals working on the best way to do this, for a YEAR. They've seen Trump do nearly a dozen debates and attempts by various rivals to shut him up, to almost no success but can see what may have worked and what definitely doesn't (and possibly, what may get Trump to behave in some SPECIFIC way haha). And they've seen the PRESS struggle with Trump constantly interrupting with his annoying 'Excuse me, excuse me' and which in the press have finally gotten in a follow-up question, etc.

I am 100% certain the Hillary debate prep team has come up with a 'killer' plan that Hillary believes works. It may more more than one attempt and more than one method, used in series or something more elaborate, but as long as Trump does his annoying interruptions, I am certain we'll see Hillary run that play. It may be one that rattles Trump totally for the debate. So remember, Trump ALWAYS gets to speak when he interrupts someone. He NEVER stops speaking once he starts the interruption. He may babble on and then quiet down but he has not been successfully shut down - by ANYONE. And I am 100% certain the Hillary debate prep team have a PLAN that THEY believe will work. And it will throw Trump off his game like nothing we've yet seen. Because nobody has ever told Mr Trump to shut up. And likely, it will be a magnificent way to piss in his eye. He will hate it and she will beam. Assuming it works. And then what? It may seem to Trump, inside his little brain, that this is the most outrageous insult he's ever been subjected to..

He could go ballistic one way or another (imagine Trump charging Hillary with fists raised so angry he might punch her, there have been many political situations with fisticuffs even in the USA, but not obviously on a TV debate scene (yet). And Trump has a violent temper, he was accused of raping and violence in the first divorce, etc. Trump has a particularly hard time dealing with strong women. But imagine another possibility, a furious Trump storms off the stage... He's left interviews when he felt the interview was getting unfair.. ). 

But even on a far lesser level, if Trump is fuming, steaming angry, he isn't thinking clearly, he will be bewildered, he will be incoherent and he forgets his speeches. The one primary debate when the others ganged up on Trump and he didn't bother to use the full time of his concluding commments. Trump is a hot-head and he can be baited to blow up. Or if he holds it in but is steaming, he clearly can't think anymore.

THE OTHER TRUMP METHODS

So next, from the interruptions, yes. Trump also responds to provocations by name-calling. Childish yes. Likely has been instructed again and again by his debate team to not go there with Hillary. Its very not-Presidential. But what was his third method... haha... audience. When Trump was attacked by Cruz & Rubio in tag-team fashion, he'd resort to audience rescue. Throw something at them that his rallies love and gets almost instant but very powerful audience reaction. Something that a racist sexist xenophobe homophobe islamophobe audience would love Trump to say. It only worked partially in the primaries because the primary TV audience wasn't pure Trumpsters, and Trump then turned on the audience blaming them of being plants by his rivals. Yeah. But now its FAR worse. This is not a Republican audience at all. Its an undecided Independent New York up-state audience (of far more mixed races too than lily-white Trump rallies). They do not react to 'Build the Wall' with 'Mexico will pay'. And its not even a 'Trump' type New York (Manhattan, rich) audience. Its an up-state rural/small town but moderate New York audience. Incidentally, who was their Senator for 8 years? Hillary Clinton. She KNOWS this audience. Trump doesn't. So Trump will try to get the audience to rescue him, and they will leave him standing, cold. And Trump will be stunned and bewildered. Why don't they love me? They must be in cahoots with Hillary...

Now. Trump speaks at his rallies to this Deplorables (racists, sexists, homophobes...) and they love him before they dress on their eveningwear for their KKK and Nazi after-parties. Trump has trained his mind and speaking style to appeal to Nazis and KKK supporters. None of who will be in that big auditorium at Hofstra University. Where is Hillary? She's speaking in battleground states to moderate voters and addressing their needs. And she knows upstate New York undecided voters. If Hillary wants an audience reaction, she can get one rather easily. And I would advise her to use this tactic, even if the moderator says that the audience must be quiet... 

If Trump feels the audience hates him, and he can't get them to 'love' him, he will feel abandoned - and angry at the audience. If Hillary can get the audience to laugh AT TRUMP, it will hurt him really badly. And that will drive Trump totally off his game. He will then feel the world is conspiring against him. He'll probably feel by half-way into the debate that the moderator is also in cahoots against Trump, so if he's now fighting against Hillary AND the moderator AND the audience, then gosh, its utterly unfair... And then Trump is likely to launch attacks at the moderator and the audience, rather than Hillary. And Hillary can mop up and toss thoughts like Trump who is so thin-skinned, you can taunt him with a Tweet.

Its not that Trump cannot read an audience (he is really good at that) but that this is the WRONG type of audience for him. If he had spent the past three months after a proper pivot to general election campaigning, and reaching to undecided voters rather than pre-screened Trump fanatics, Nazis and White Supremacists - then he'd know how to talk to this undecided audience. Instead he will be as if speaking Vietnamese to them and their reaction will be like trying to understand Finnish. But Hillary will speak 'undecided' fluently and can read the room perfectly.

ANGRY LOSES THE DEBATE

So the first thing Hillary will try to do, as an overall strategy, is to try to get Trump so angry, he loses his cool. If you become angry in a debate, you lost the debate. And Trump will be warned against this and at least for the first 30 minutes, Trump will remember to act calm, whatever you do, just act calm and smile that everything is fine and dandy. (BTW look at the Trump mouthpieces - they all are able to lie straight to camera on any issue and keep smiling. That is not hard to do if you get a job at Trump's organization. He hires people for whom this comes naturally. Trump is able to do that. He can look you straight into the eye and say three completely opposite things in a row and think he's still telling the truth).

Now what if Hillary traps Trump into saying something he loves saying on the trail, that is actually in contradiction to what he said earlier in that same debate (Trump almost as a rule in any interview or debate, will contradict himself. There was one interview where Trump took 3 contradictory positions inside 5 minutes). Then Hillary hits Trump with it. But now imagine if the MODERATOR picks up on it, AFTER Hillary mentioned it, and in some way references that clear contradiction that Trump just said - for example honestly just to let Trump clarify and explain himself. Trump would likely view this as the moderator siding with Hillary and they're in a conspiracy plotting against him. He'd be now very angry inside. At that level, the debate prep work to 'remember to remain calm' is receeding and he suddely is fearing this is an ambush, they are out to skewer him in front of 90 million people and suddenly the calm urge may well be forgotten.

For Hillary the first step of this strategy succeeding is seeing if Trump exhibits his anger signs. And yeah, it might be that Trump is able to keep from interrupting for the first half hour, then gets angered and starts his interruptions - at which point we'd get Hillary's anti-interruption strategy haha.

Same goes with Hillary of course. She does get testy with the forever repeated questions about emails and Benghazi and Trump will try to run those as many times as he can in the debate to get Hillary onto that issue. But Hillary also knows that angry loses the debate, so she will keep calm and show a smiling face, as she did for 12 hours of the Benghazi witch-hunt. But there is a good chance that Trump can't take two hours of holding it in, and then some provocations from Hillary or the anti-interruption play or using Trump's words against him or getting the audience to laugh at Trump could bring about a level of anger we haven't see from the Don in public.

HOW DO YOU ANSWER?

We've seen professionals do this for decades. The TV Presidential debate question. Its always the same way. You answer the exact question that was asked, but in your response you make it relevant to the audience. Then you pivot to your talking point that is related or can reasonably be transitioned to. A talking point that is powerful and that allows the attack on the rival. You include a joke and smile. Thats it. The exact evidence/argument will vary to be sure you talk to every type of person in the audience (some have to 'see' some have to 'feel' some have to be talked to by reason ie math, stats, while the others are convinced by emotion, etc etc, standard rhetorical tools that Hillary and all good speakers like Obama Christie etc use instinctively, and Trump doesn't).

Trump doesn't do this. He isn't prepared enough to know what the answer is, and at times struggles even to know what the QUESTION is. And his own positions on any position have changed so many times that he has no clue what the best response would be at that point. But he plays it by ear, and reacts to the audience. Which works fine if he's speaking to a room of white trash but not to a room of serious, undecided, Independent voters who are very well familiar with the issues. So Trump's response will be a grab bag of platitudes, often his solution is 'to collect the best people to solve it', after he is elected, etc. 

WHICH TRUMP SHOWS UP

Which gets us to Hillary's biggest problem. We don't know which Trump shows up, it may be any of half a dozen variations that were seen on the primary debates or some other Trump split personality we haven't even witnessed yet on a debate stage. In that way Trump is a total nightmare to prep for. BUT if you EVER had a candidate willing to over-prepare even against the mystery of Trump .. that is Hillary Clinton! She will be prepared for any variation of Trump, even if Trump then morphs during the debate into another of his various personas.

TRUMP'S MISSION

For Trump he has to escape the debate with something close to a tie, but mostly to be seen as 'reasonably close to Presidential'. Remember Sarah Palin's first TV interview with Katie Couric? The 'I read all the newspapers' interview. After that came the VP debate with Joe Biden and we all waited with our popcorn to have the next 'Katie Couric' moment which never came. Yes, Sarah was a bit goofy but she was 'good enough' in the debate, even knew a few things, and hit a few zingers, and wasn't a total blabbering idiot. Now, in the coming weeks to the election the vast majority of Americans including many Republican came to the conclusion that Sarah Palin was unfit to be VP but that TV debate? It did not kill her chances. We found out later that she wan't prepped to answer questions, she actually memorized a set of canned responses, but that didn't matter. At the time, it seemed like she was not a total basketcase and seemed like an ok sensible woman, why not. This is the standard for Trump. He'll need to escape the debate with that level of respect as Sarah Palin had after the VP debate with Biden in 2008. Its not an easy thing to do against Hillary but if Trump can keep calm, is a bit lucky with the questions, has done good prep, he can do it. And if Trump manages to play the role of 'Nice Trump' for two hours.

HILLARY'S MISSION

Hillary has to get Trump to stumble. Trump may very well stumble by himself and then Hillary has to catch it and skewer Trump with whatever gaffe happened. But she will need to come out of the debate with a clear win. Trump will be trying essentially the boxing trick of 'rope-a-dope'. Just try not to lose the fight. Keep calm and reasonable, thats it. Hillary will want to provoke Trump massively - without the HINT of attempting to provoke Trump. Not an easy thing to do but they've had their team of psychologists studying Trump and think they know which buttons to press. We did see in nearly half of the primary debates that Trump can be provoked easily and in a wide variety of ways.

But if they depart the stage with a feeling of a rough balance, maybe a little better this way or that - thats a tie and then Hillary lost this chance. And its HIGHLY likely that Trump will not do any more debates after this one. And Hillary knows that too. She will want to take advantage of Trump now, on stage, and truly skewer him. Without seeming to provoke him, making it seem like she's only hitting Trump on the issues, and if possible, with jokes and a smile - but in the ways that their psychologists have determined, are the most effective way to get Trump to explode.

On the issues, Hillary's position is essentially at every point the default US moderate view, which is why she struggled with the progressive/liberal wing of the Democratic party and the primary race with Bernie. But now it serves her well because on any issue that comes up from child care to global warming to Putin to gun control to legalizing pot to gay rights, Hillary is in the mainstream popular view, and Trump is on the outside - or if he's recently taken a more moderate view, he's BEEN on the outside and can be attacked for pandering and flipflopping.

But on sounding sensible and reasonable? Trump rarely is pressed and then he tends to hold onto his stupid absurd positions or deny he'd just said something absurd a moment earlier. Hillary doesn't HAVE to pander or alter her views. So she just responds with what is already on her website onto any question but can put all her debate skill in now turning this against Trump. What was Trump's WORST position on this issue and what was the media where he was quoted in saying that... she may even resort to the Marco Rubio trick of inviting audiences to go Google things that Trump claims he never said haha.

TRAP TRUMP

But for example Iraq war. National security will be one of the three topics on Monday. Both Clinton and Trump had been for the war early and then changed their minds about it. Hillary admits she changed her mind. Trump still insists he was against the war from the beginning, and quotes his famous Esquire magazine interview in 2004 (the war started in 2003). Well, the Washington Post did a full time-line of Trump and the Iraq war.

In 2003 he first told Howard Stern's radio show he's for the invasion.
Then in March in 2003 he said on Fox that the war is 'a tremendous success'.
Only 3 days later, in an interview on Washington Post, yes 3 days later Trump said 'the war is a mess'.
By September of 2003 Trump said he would not have gone in.
By November 2003 Trump wanted 'something done' about Iraq.
By August of 2004 is that Esquire magazine interview where Trump says the war is a mess and 'I would never have handled it that way'
and by November on CNN Trump said it was not the right decision to go into Iraq - and that the USA should GET OUT.
Now of course Trump says it was a mistake for W Bush to take the USA out of Iraq
and further, that Obama also came out of Iraq in the wrong way.

You see what I mean? Trump on ANY issue has taken EVERY position. Now, someone like Hillary who knows the issue of the Iraq war incredibly well - she was Secretary of State when the US troops started to exit the war zone (on a treaty signed obviously not by Obama but signed by W Bush) - so on any Iraq question that is addressed to Hillary, she could say something like 'I know, I originally voted for the war, but it turned out to be a mess and I obviously changed my mind.' And then pivot to something about ISIS etc.

Now note, the words 'Iraq was a mess' will very VERY likely trigger Trump to use his rebuttal to go into his fave Esquire quote - yes but I was always against the war, I called it a mess in Esquire magazine in 2004.. and then Trump's STANDARD stump speech goes into a tirade that Obama GOT OUT OF THE WAR.

So note the inherent contradiction here. If the war is a mess, don't you want the USA to come out? But a base Republican-right wing audience who hate Obama will love anything hateful said about Obama. But in Trump's mind its now - Iraq = mess = Esquire = get out = Obama mistake.

Hillary got the original question, Trump the response so Hillary gets last rebuttal. NOW the trap. Oh, but Donald, after the Esquire interview where yes, you called the Iraq war a mess, you then in November 2004, on CNN, said that the war was going so badly, to quote 'hopefully we will be getting out'. What is it? Your President George W Bush did exactly what you asked for in 2004, he got the USA out of Iraq. Now you want to blame Obama and me for that decision. You said the war was a mess? Doesn't it make sense then to end it? And if you said you wanted the USA out of Iraq, then you can't blame President Bush for doing exactly what you asked for. You can't have it both ways, Donald, you said the war was a mess, and I agree. And you asked for the USA to leave, and it did.

Can Trump be 'conditioned' to AVOID using his stump speech at the debate? Highly unlikely. A trained pro speaker, yeah. Trump, lazy Trump? I don't think so. And note, Hillary would not need one 'provocation' to get Trump to jump on that issue. Its a 'Trump' issue which his mind thinks is a WINNER. Trump regularly quotes the Esquire magazine and Hillary doesn't have to mention the name of the magazine, just the trigger word - which Trump's brain will instantly recognize - wait, Hillary claims to have said the Iraq war is 'a mess' - wait, I SAID THAT TOO. And then he is walking right into a trap.

Note if the Iraq question goes to Trump, then this trap won't work (because Trump speaks last) but because Trump is TRULY INHERENTLY INCONSISTENT on every issue, this is child's play on ANY issue. There is ALWAYS an opposite Trump position on everything. Hillary doesn't need to memorize them all, but her team will pick which about dozen issues are so strong, they will devastate Trump. You know like quitting NATO, like giving Crimea to the Russians, like arming Japan with nukes, like inviting Kim Jong Un to dinner etc. Like not showing his tax returns. Like Trump University. and on and on and on. And all she needs is the clever triggers to get Trump to jump onto the appropriate stump speech 'fault' and then the trap is set...

This will take a lot of work. This will mean prepping for a hundred scenarios where maybe two may come up at the debate, but if one works, it could be epic. And all you really need is for Trump to get angry. Because once he is angry, he is no longer able to keep that cool demeanor of being 'Presidential' and if he starts to interrupt Hillary, then comes the anti-interruption play - and THAT may destroy Trump as a viable President.

NO TIME

Very often the first debate is shadow-boxing. But this time there is a genuine and considerable danger that Trump will cancel the remaining debates. And in the 2 hour debate there are only 90 minutes of speaking time because of TV ad breaks. With the questions and closing statements, only 40 minutes actual time to answer questions per candidate. At about 3 minutes per question-set it would be 30 total sets, probably less, maybe only 20 or so actual questions asked. There is not much of an opportunity to get under Trump's skin. Hillary has to start early, and use every trick they came up with. And Trump may well handle it all. Remember, there is never a way to win a debate. You can only lose one. But Trump is so undisciplined as a politician and debater, plus he's so inconsistent in his political positions plus has such a thin skin, he may well be led into a trap. And if Trump loses his cool it could be curtains on his Presidential run.

The single most likely outcome is a rough draw or mild Hillary victory. One that doesn't move the needle much, a point or two either way. But a Trump disaster is possible. It could be just an angry hostile frustrated and partly incoherent Trump. And it could be a 5 point boost to Hillary. And there is a modest chance of a legendary breakdown by Trump. Cussing. Yelling. Walking off the stage. I can imagine it that we come back from the fourth TV ad break and there is Lester Holt looking stern speaking to us with two podiums, Hillary at her podium and an empty Trump podium, and Holt saying, Ladies and gentlemen, as of now Mr Trump has left the stage and we are not sure if he will return... That would be delicious haha.

This debate could end Trump's run. If Trump stumbles badly, it could be over. He could insist he was ambushed and refuse to debate. He could see a catastrophic collapse of his support and of tons of sitting Republicans suddenly abandoning him and saying they can't vote for Trump. It could be the most epic debate that makes us forget about Governor Oops. That is possible. It could rocket Hillary up by 10 points, drop Trump to 35% and essentially mean his political life died on that stage at Hofstra on Monday. Thats possible but its not likely. But you can bet your bottom dollar that the Hillary team has a strategy to try to get that done and she will run it if she senses the opening.

More likely is that Trump has a bad night because of Hillary's multiple and constant attacks but still holds his composure, becomes ever less coherent towards the end of the debate, is judged to have lost the debate but has not actually disqualified himself and the polls quickly jump something like 5 points in Hillary's favor like in the first Romney-Obama debate of 2012. And the most likely outcome. No change, a tie or slight Hillary victory. Almost no movement in the polls and the surprising 2016 season moves onto the next mystery. Will Trump dare to debate again?

DIRTY TRICKS SQUAD

Now there is one more wrinkle. The Bossie play. David Bossie is a lifer professional Clinton-hater. Bossie is the guy whose case was 'Citizens United' and that film in that notorious Supreme Court case was against ...Hillary Clinton. Yes the total 'arch-nemesis' to the Clintons, what the Joker is to Batman, what Lex Luthor is to Superman, what Blofeld is to James Bond; David Bossie is to Hillary Clinton and Trump just hired him 3 weeks ago. What has Bossie done? NOTHING so far. With only 7 weeks to go to hte election? Trump is a cheapskate scumbag, he hates spending money. He doesn't hire a top political expensive operative to sit around and do nothing. No. There is a nefarious Bossie plan and we MAY know its timing. Trump TV ads went suddenly silent this week. Last week they spent 5 million dollars in 4 states. This week, nothing. But the Trump campaign HAS bought a lot of TV ad time starting next week TUESDAY. Immediately after the debate. Its possible that some vile 'Swift Boat' style lies-based attack has been prepared by David Bossie, with 'evidence' something in the style of Hillary and Bill Clinton are child slave labor sex trade masterminds who steal young white Christian babies and rape them and then eat them in paganistic cannibal rituals with Muslims, Jews and Mormons. All this with clear evidence and witnesses and you know, Swift Boating.. 

Whatever nasty trick Bossie has been preparing for 3 weeks, has to come out soon (six weeks left on Monday) and it could be that next Tuesday's big TV ad buy is that gambit. And if so, Trump may want to lay some trap of his own, trying to get Hillary somehow to incriminate herself during the debate - or Trump could also make his accusation in his closing remark. The Bossie story could be leaked DURING the TV debates or immediately at its end, so to immediately remove the story from 'Trump lost debate' to 'Hillary is child trafficking sex slave and cannibal trader' or whatever it is they have cooked up.

ADDENDUM - As I was reading & re-reading and editing the blog, two more things hit me. First. The debate is an opportunity for the Hillary campaign to collect Trump sound bites. The Hillary campaign knows what Trump is saying on the trail. They could take the sound-bite from his stump speech and it will work. What would make it far stronger, is if whoever hears that Trump sound-bite, that very PERSON also heard Trump say that EXACT thing. So now, with a 90 million audience where 75% of voters actually watched - the BEST place to grab a Trump sound-bite is here. Some things Hillary will bait Trump on, is not to slam Trump in the debate necessarily, but rather to trap Trump into saying something that will then come to haunt him in the last 6 weeks in the TV ad - which rings exceptionally true to voters, because they all SAW Trump just say that, in the debate. The anti-Trump TV ads in his own words are devastating (I just saw the girls ad, and as an uncle & godfather, I can only imagine my neices and godchild.)

But then whats with the Billionaire Mark Cuban 'play'? It seems like Cuban will be seated in the front row as a guest of the Clintons. He's been getting under Trump's skin a lot. Here is what I think that play is. Hillary will use Cuban's promise - Cuban will donate 5 million to charity if Trump releases his taxes. Not just any charity - to VETERANS. And now put Trump on a really bad spot. Cuban sits there staring him with a massive grin on his face (and TV cameras showing split-screen) and Trump asked, will you release your taxes or will you not support the vets. Trump himself only gave 1 million of his own money that he previously promised, and only after 5 months of hounding by the press that where is the promised million. Now Hillary can point to Cuban and say, Trump if you release your taxes Mark will donate 5 million to the vets. Which is more important to you, hiding your taxes or helping the vets. I think this may be a masterful ploy to really freak out Trump - make him look weak when he buckles - but I can't imagine Trump surviving that attack without promising the tax returns (which he absolutely under no circumstances wants to ever release). Oh I can't wait to see this play out. Or it this is just a ruse, to get the Trump campaign to prep on how to respond to Cuban, while the tax return attack is something else altogether and Cuban is there only to mess with Trump and get inside his head (I'd love to see Senator Warren also there, she's the other master of screwing with Trump's head).

Comments

[steve]

She is going to get him on ignorance of his own party.
He doesn't know the R governors, nor the Congress and Senate R committee chairs by heart.

He had no clue that Jeff Flake in AZ was not even running this year when he threatened him.

He doesn't even know the map of DC well enough to know where the Cabinet officers work.

Just hammering him on Putin liking him is a winner.

Good post...only a 2 cuppah.... ;)

s/

[Millard Filmore]

@Tomi: "imagine Trump charging Hillary with fists raised so angry he might punch her"

If the Secret Service needs to step between Trump and Hillary, hmmmm, I wonder how Fox and Breitbart will spin that.

[grogxd]

typo: "The 3-way race of 1982"

If the moderators do their work Hillary should not have any problems, otherwise I can see people thinking that Trump won because he spoke louder all the time.

[Makinen]

@Tomi

Typo => it should be "practice" and not "practise" thru all the post!

[Tomi T Ahonen]

Hi grogxd - thanks! corrected

Makinen - gosh, do I have to go practice my practice spelling? Wait, isn't practise one of those that has a British and US spelling that allows the S or the C. I don't remember. I blame... OBAMA !!!

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[Makinen]

@Tomi

In the main varieties of English from outside North America, practice is the noun, and practise is the verb. There is no such distinction in American English, where practice is both a noun and a verb, and practise is not used at all.

[Makinen]

This is really good post of Tomi!

I would add that the tendency of Trump to talk over and interrupt should be seen also as a weakness because when Trump does it is because he is half-angry (or in vulnerable position). Therefore Hillary must find some kind of trick to amplify Trump's half-angry to full blown angry when he does the interruption. A trick might be to ask some kind response from audience when Trump does that.

[Winter]

The Onion gives an inside view on Hillary's debate preparation:

http://www.theonion.com/article/blindfolded-clinton-invites-debate-coaches-to-atta-53988

[paul]

Inside Hillary Clinton’s debate prep

Several Democrats .. tell POLITICO that the main person playing the role of interlocutor ...was campaign chairman John Podesta, a sharp-tongued veteran operator known less for bluster than behind-the-curtain scheme-spinning. The wiry Podesta is quick on his feet, and is famous for a lashing tongue when angry.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/hillary-clinton-debate-prep-228558

4 Things To Watch In The First Debate For Hillary Clinton

http://www.npr.org/2016/09/23/495077610/4-things-to-watch-in-the-first-debate-for-hillary-clinton

[paul]

This might work against Trump

Between Two Ferns With Zach Galifianakis: Hillary Clinton

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrkPe-9rM1Q

[paul]

It looks like that the more damaging ads against Trump start to show up

New Clinton ad shows girls looking in mirror as Trump insults women
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/23/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-women-ad/

[Winter]

Trump has an easy solution to the debate challenge: Use a prompter like Bush fils the lesser did.

http://www.salon.com/2004/10/09/bulge/

Trump always hires "The Best", so he will do so this time, I think.

[Winter]

As Tomi writes:

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Take Different Approaches to First Debate Prep
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/2016-presidential-debates/clinton-trump-take-different-approaches-first-debate-prep-n652726

[Halibut_ter]

Shutting up trump?
I'd do a detroit paster theme, walk up to him, touch him on the shoulder and say, "It was my time at the mic, mister"
treat him like the 12 year old toadie that he is.

[Winter]

Pierson is at it again. At least media people are wising up:

Jake Tapper Shuts Down Katrina Pierson: 'That Has Never Happened in the History of the World'
http://www.mediaite.com/online/jake-tapper-shuts-down-katrina-pierson-that-has-never-happened-in-the-history-of-the-world/

[Winter]

Trump is willing to make money off everything:

Donald Trump Made $1.6 Million Off the Secret Service
http://fortune.com/2016/09/23/donald-trump-secret-service/

[Wayne Borean]

Ted Cruz has jumped the shark. Yes, he is now endorsing Donald J. Trump.

This is a really odd move, and shows none of the ideological firmness Ted Cruz has told us to expect from him. It makes him look all wishey washey.

[Wayne Borean]

@paul

That sort of add will help drive turnout from women. It points out the problems with Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton does not have those problems, in fact for women Hillary Clinton will be the greatest President ever. Obama hasn't been a bad president for women, but he won't be as good as Clinton will be.

[Tomi T Ahonen]

Hi Wayne

The Ted Cruz story shows incredibly bad judgment. Cruz knows better than anyone else that Trump was vulnerable in debates especially one-on-one. Cruz wanted Trump to debate just alone, so he could try to destroy Trump.

Cruz has already all the baggage of being against Trump. Joining the Trump train NOW, after being against Trump at the Convention, means Cruz had already taken the heat. A few days would not ever matter at this stage. But consider the very simple possibilities.

Trump may suffer in the debate. If so, MORE Republicans on the fence will abandon Trump and Cruz would have cover to stay out - and Cruz would be one of the 'heroes' who stood firm, with integrity (like John Kasich).

Trump may do well in debate - then join on TUESDAY. Cruz would have perfect excuse - Trump was strong in debate, hence he finally came onboard. Since Cruz was going to be ridiculed from abandoning his position anyway, then at least do it when there is some cover for his clear political convenience.

Instead - if Trump wins the election, Cruz was one of the last to join. His advantage minimal and he won't get to run in 2020 anyway because Trump would be running for re-election.

But if Trump loses the election, Cruz now lost his leadership position for 2020 - and he would be one of the LAST to join, right before Trump's ship sank. And he'll just look supremely calculating and unprincipled when the time comes to see who was where.

Bad timing. I think after Cleveland his best bet was always to stay out. Now he did all that for this humiliation in the end? Silly. And the TIMING could not be worse.

If it goes as I think it does, Cruz will be the last big name who ever joined Trump before the rats start to sink the ship. He will be seen as having truly horrid judgment. He'll get none of the benefit of Cleveland but all the harm of Trump. This will severely harm Cruz's chances for 2020 (good news for Rubio and Kasich).

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[Tomi T Ahonen]

Hi paul & Wayne

Let me illustrate what the woman vote problem looks like for the election and to pollsters.

Lets say Trump ends with 15% gender gap (biggest its ever been) and male vote was 50/50 (remember that includes blacks & latino men now averaging out with whites for 50/50 men). Also to keep the math simple, lets assume only 2 candidates.

If the voter turnout is 50/50 men & women. And men vote 50/50 but women vote with 15% gender gap as measured in recent polls, it means women vote 57.5% to 42.5% for Hillary vs Trump. Nationally, easy math, Hillary wins by 7.5% (again, remember I'm now simplifying without third parties to illustrate just the polling & turnout problem).

So if men & women vote evenly, and Hillary gets a 15% gender gap, then her victory margin is 7.5% nationally.

But women vote more than men. So exactly same scenario as above, but now move the proportion to reflect normal voting, ie women vote 3% more than men. Still keep 15% gender gap. I've just mathematically shifted the totals so it still results in a gender gap of 15% but now total vote is 51.5% women voting and 48.5% men voting. Hillary's total margin remains the same, 7.5% but now we have the absolute numbers to reflect the reality that women vote more than men. So in total numbers are:

29.5% of all votes were women for Hillary, 24.25% were men for Hillary = 53.75% Total
22.0% of all votes were women for Trump, 24.25% were men for Trump = 46.25% Total

To give us the numbers to compared, lets change that to ACTUAL voters in millions. Lets say its 130 million votes. So now the above percentages become:

38.4M women vote for Hillary, 31.5M men = 69.9M tot votes (53.75%)
28.6M women vote for Trump, 31.5M men = 63.1M tot votes (46.25%)

This would be measurable by polling and depends on how we allocate the proportion of female vote based on polls. But what if there is a female surge that hits almost exclusively only the woman and boosts her, against the man. Lets now use those exact voter numbers and only provide a 10% surge of female vote. And put the total surge only for hillary. So we add obviously 7M votes all for women for Hillary.

45.4M women vote for Hillary, 31.5M men = 76.9M total votes (56.1%)
28.6M women vote for Trump, 31.5M men = 63.1M tot votes (43.9%)

Men stay the same, women are 10% extra. But the women's vote now goes all to Hillary. A 10% turnout jump in only women would mean an ACCURATELY measured 7.5% poll equals 12.2% final election result !!!

Because any female surge would come almost exclusively only for Hillary, it totally destroys the election - AND it messes up the polling. But how can you measure that? Those women will give a 'normal' uncertain opinion of whether to vote or not. Like any uncertain voter any normal year. Only this year, when a man says he's possibly voting, he also is only possibly voting, but when a woman says she is possibly voting, it ends up she's quite likely voting in the last moment.. Because there is a woman on the ticket and because its the first time.

This is the biggest 'unmeasurable' in this election. I thought we'd have two - if Hillary had picked a Hispanic VP we'd have a second such strong surge vote but now we only get something close to 'normal' growth in Hispanic vote because of demographic shifts, not a particular surge like the black vote was for Obama in 2008. But this will CERTAINLY happen with women. Now, ads like the 'girls' ad will help drive up this female surge. It will ALSO drive up the gender GAP. But note, in this above example when we do the math, the gender gap has already gone ballistic (because the surge only went to one side) so instead of the measured 15% we get 22.6% gender gap).

So that is what this female vote is about. It will go almost exclusively to Hillary and that 'normally not sure to vote' type of voter that every pollster has to mathematically estimate, in any other year behaves 'normally' and can be caught by good statisticians, but this year, an unprecedented moment happens like first iPhone or first phablet Galaxy Note. And that messes up the forecast.

I am 100% certain there will be a female surge, the problem is, nobody knows how big. But yes, a 10% increase in female vote over what is normal when more than 90% of that goes to Hillary, means a 7.5% election accurately measured election poll turns into and actual 12.2% election RESULT.

And no pollster can accurately measure that before it has happened the first time. And this phenomenon will diminish into Hillary's second election in 2020 and then almost vanish in future elections but is likely to persist (but in ever diminishing size) into those elections when one side nominates a woman and the other side a man, for even a few election cycles into the future.

Tomi Ahonen :-)