“Mrs Clinton is an accomplished and well-prepared debater. That means Mr Trump’s bar for winning will be far lower.”
One of the things I don’t understand is that ALL enemedia articles promote as a given that Hillary is expected to do great in the debates and that Trump is expected to do poorly.
I just don’t get it. Trump mopped the floor with 16 opponents in what seemed like an infinite number of debates, most with extremely hostile “moderators”, and thus Trump has tremendous debate experience. Trump also has tremendous experience in dealing with the media and tremendous experience in front of the camera in general.
Hillary has none of those things: next to no debate experience, she does nothing but hide from the media and when she does appear, she makes sure it’s in front of pre-selected sycophants, and finally, she does not have the camera time Trump has.
What does the enemedia gain by falsely promoting the notion that Hillary is expected to do well and Trump not do well, when most of the facts point to the contrary? After all, if she falls apart, they can’t exactly say that that was what was expected all along.
Doesn’t matter—they don’t actually think that, other than that Hillary with the aid of the moderators could “out-wonkspeak” him. So they will try like anything to lower the bar for Hill before the debates.
I could see them trying to position it as if all she has to do is prove her health by withstanding the debates, and her superior credentials justify her election.
Still, underestimation is not a bad thing for Trump—it helped him in his primary battles.