The most pressing question that Donald J Trump could face next week in the first debate of the US 2016 presidential race may not be about Iran or immigration, but this: Can he deploy enough adjectives ("huge!"), superlatives ("the worst!") and invectives ("loser!") for him to use up his time without being challenged successfully on the substance of policy?
Trump could come away a winner if he makes cogent points without sounding too hostile, presenting himself as more of a serious-minded, anti-establishment voice in a primary crowded with career Republican politicians. But there are risks for him if he turns the debate stage in Cleveland into another episode of the reality show his campaign has sometimes resembled.
The property mogul boasts about spending no time preparing for the event, which will be broadcast on Fox News on August 6th, even as his aides have put together briefing papers for him on policy and pungent lines of attack. He already knows plenty about the issues, he says, so much that, rather than cramming, he will be in Scotland over the weekend at a golf tournament on one of his courses.
And after weeks of slashing at his opponents in interviews, he refuses to say whom he may single out when the 10 leading primary contenders stand side by side. “I have great respect for some of the candidates,” Trump said in an interview. “I don’t have great respect for others.”
He cannot know who will try to embarrass him. Then again, he suggested, he may just choose targets of opportunity. “It depends on the feel,” he said. “It depends on what’s taking place.” No candidate is more likely to wing it than the mercurial Trump. But the man who read rival candidate Senator Lindsey Graham’s mobile phone number aloud on a South Carolina stage has set the bar fairly high for himself to do something that would qualify as outrageous.
He is likely to arrive in Cleveland ready with cutting "observations" about each of his rivals, according to a person briefed on Trump's debate preparations who was not authorised to speak publicly. (A recent example: He said former governor Rick Perry of Texas "put glasses on so people will think he's smart". He added, "It just doesn't work.")
Trump's mantra, in his books and in his paid speeches, is to counterattack harder when anyone throws a punch. (As he did when gently chastised by Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin. "Wisconsin is a mess," Trump retorted.) He could just single out just one of his rivals, especially a formidable one, for ridicule and provocation. (Jeb Bush, he said not long ago, is "an unhappy person.")
In a 90-minute debate with 10 candidates for the Republican nomination, Trump’s speaking time is unlikely to reach 10 minutes, even with rebuttals, leaving little time for him to delve into policy details. But he could be pressed to do more than trash the Iran nuclear deal or the Obama administration’s foreign policy in broad terms, or claim he has a secret plan to defeat the militant group Islamic State, as he has done so far.
"He's gotten away with just blustery criticisms and sweeping generalisations until now," Kevin Madden, a Republican strategist who advised Mitt Romney in 2012, said in an email. "It will be interesting to see if the Fox moderators, who are trusted validators among Republican primary voters, force him to provide more specifics on important policy issues."
"He can't just complain about the media to a Republican audience when it's Bret Baier asking the question," he said, referring to a Fox News anchor. There have already been glimpses of less-than-sure-footedness from Trump on the campaign trail. On a trip last week to Laredo, Texas, to visit the border with Mexico, he had difficulty summoning details when pressed on how he would fix the immigration system.
“We have to have legal immigration, legal immigration,” he said repeatedly. “We want to get legal immigration in. We want legal immigration.” He seemed relieved when a reporter changed the subject for him, asking about Perry – and allowing him to return to the offensive. Trump betrays no anxiety about his command of the issues. In fact, he maintains that his rivals are afraid of him. So much so that, he claimed, some of them, he declined to say which, have privately asked him to go easy on them in the debate.
It is possible, of course, that Trump could choose to disarm his opponents not by finding new ways to humiliate them but by being statesmanlike and courteous. “If we live in a world where he is a serious candidate, and intends to prove that he’s a serious candidate, then it is a real opportunity,” said Stuart Stevens, another former Romney adviser. “I think for Donald Trump, a boring debate would probably help.”
Brett O'Donnell, who is coaching Graham on debate skills, ventured that if Trump insulted his rivals incessantly or indiscriminately, he could alienate viewers. If he refrains, O'Donnell added, "I think he helps himself if he comes off as a serious candidate who is viewed by folks as competent enough to be president of the United States. "
But others think there is little chance that the format will allow for such a thing. "The debate moderators will pride themselves on throwing one candidate against another," said Alex Castellanos, a veteran Republican strategist. "A fistfight is unavoidable."
New York Times
