Trump could win the debate simply by bluffing

Trump could win the debate simply by bluffing, by Kyle Smith.

If [the moderator Lester] Holt takes the bad advice of Clinton advocates and argues with Trump, rather than letting the candidates argue with each other, it’ll mean cutting in on him. “Mr. Trump, the question was about—” “Mr. Trump, that isn’t what I asked.” “Mr. Trump, can we get back to the subject—” Interrupting Trump will be a mistake.

Whatever his failings may be, Trump is an alpha male, and Holt is a nerd. Nobody outside the media-political-progressive class likes to see nerds beat alphas. It’s contrary to the basic order of things.

All Trump has to do is raise his voice a little to make it clear who’s in charge: “Ex-CUSE me, Lester, are you going to let me finish?” Or, “Listen, I’m the candidate here. People want to hear what I have to say, not what you have to say, OK?”

Holt will look pathetic, Trump supporters will roar and middle-of-the-road voters will think, “The man’s a strong leader, no doubt about it.”

Debates are not intelligence tests. They’re not LSATs. They’re television shows, and one participant is the former star of one of the top-ten highest-rated programs in the land.

The media has so demonized Trump that they have set the bar very low. All Trump has to do is show up and seem vaguely competent and likeable, and he will have exceeded expectations.