You’ll hear it first at Rain-Man of Politics: Donald Trump will win the first debate, Monday September 26^th, handily. The recently held Commander-in-Chief forum showed a little glimpse into the dynamics of the first debate. The forum was also a throwback to the same style that consistently allowed Donald Trump to win the Republican Primary Debates. That opinion was not always shared amongst the media elite, usually faulting Trump for misquoting facts, making up facts, or for just having a surface level of understanding of any topic beyond immigration and business. However, Donald Trump spoke authoritatively and moderators cannot fact check mid debate. Trump also dominated the time allowed during the Republican debates, usually the person who speaks the most looks like the victor, regardless of fact. This trend will continue underscored by one simple reality- the first debate will be a lawyer vs. a showman.

The American public does not enjoy listening to lawyers outside of law procedurals on television (Law & Order). The American public absolutely adores showmen, of any type, of any sort. There were a few Republican Debates where, if just listening, you would think John Kasich or Marco Rubio came out on top. Their positions were sound, their positions were grounded in conservative Republican thought but they were never talked about as winning the debate. On the other hand, remember just listening, Donald Trump gave short answers and sometimes absurdly verbose answers that would deflect the question entirely. So two examples:

Question: “How will you pay for the wall?”

Response: “Mexico will pay for it”

Question: “How will you pay for the wall?

Response: “We will make Mexico pay for the wall, you know they are getting away with robbery, we have to build the wall. There are remittances, we can sanction we have different methods. I’m also looking into other ways, you understand.”

This was typical of the Trump Q&A during the debates. Over the radio this may come across poorly. After all voters want details and there are no details in short or verbose answers. Yet on television, the answer is just as important as the delivery. Trump delivered his “Mexico will pay for it” lines authoritatively, at times, including the audience with a simple “they know it’s wrong what goes on” or “we know how to get Mexico to pay for it”. Once again, on substance nothing but rhetorically brilliant as lines like that bring the audience in while giving them a decision making stake. Conversely Trump would give verbose answers as well. These answers would meander, at times taking both sides of a topic or listing impossibilities. For example, the United States just cannot slap a tariff on Mexican goods as it would violate NAFTA. Whether you agree or not with NAFTA the actual legal workings make slapping a tariff on Mexican goods nigh impossible. Trump’s prior debate performances may have been light on substance but on style there was not anyone better.

Looking back there is historical precedent for this exact type of behavior by two different United States Presidents.

First let’s look at the debate that will be analogous to the first debate between Clinton and Trump. In 1960, a young politician with a great smile took on a political juggernaut. I’m alluding to, of course, the first debate between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. The debate was the first to be delivered to the American public on television while it would also be covered on the radio. The radio audience listened to Richard Nixon give sensible answers, policy driven goals, and an all-in-all understanding of what it took to be president. The radio crowd also thought Kennedy gave short answers, did not give clear answers, and did not fully grasp the policy discussions that were taking place. For them it was clear, Richard Nixon won the debate. To the radio listeners surprise they would read in the papers that JFK had a dominating debate performance and Richard Nixon looked worried, maybe ill. Sound familiar yet?

Appearance and delivery matters more than substance in politics when addressing a television audience. Nixon didn’t bother with makeup, he gave thoughtful but long answers, and ultimately he spoke like a lawyer. Kennedy got ready for the camera and spoke to the American public like they were having a short conversation around a dinner table. He allowed the audience to fill in the blanks while letting on that he did feel they were smart enough to fill in the blanks (empowering the audience). He acted like a showman including the audience in the grand finale- the audience loved it. Showmanship in politics is tremendously important. Not to undercut the nuts and bolts of political theory but if the message is good but the messenger is poor expect nobody to get the message. Trump has understood this so far in the presidential cycle and there is no reason why, out of the blue, in the first debate this reality will change.

The other President who mastered showmanship may seem very unlikely but true never the less, President Ike Eisenhower was a brilliant communicator. One specific example of Ike the Communicator that stands out is the first television news conference given by a sitting US President in 1955. Understandably this news conference was a big deal, each reporter there felt like they were part of history. Eisenhower’s advisors were understandably frightened. Reporters asking the President questions? It will be recorded? We don’t know the questions beforehand? This seemed like a calamity in the making from a communications perspective. Before taking the podium a very nervous press secretary, Jim Hagerty, advised Eisenhower to not take questions. That was not Eisenhower’s plan; to paraphrase he turned to Press Secretary Hagerty and said “Don’t worry, I’ll confuse them”. That he did. When asked difficult questions he would respond with long verbose answers, lots of details, lots of big words, lots of meandering and most importantly zero substance. It would only be in the days following the press conference that the press corps would realize most answers they received amounted to nothing new. It sounded great, it looked great, but there was no new information.

Fast forward to today, Donald Trump has mastered the art “Don’t worry, I’ll confuse them”. This rhetorical strategy was on full displayed during the Republican Primary Debates. To a lesser degree it was on display with Matt Lauer at the Commander-in-Chief forum. Donald Trump offered nothing more than his original campaign promises. When pressed you get verbose answers. For example, Trump will say, in the same sentence regarding immigration that ‘everyone needs to go back, follow the law, but it will be done humanely case by case’. This sounds terrific. In reality, it does not make too much sense. Case by case would imply not everyone needs to go back, but that some would stay, but then that wouldn’t be following the law, but then what is humane? Are you confused yet because I am and the only conclusion left is Trump is strong on immigration- the exact message he wants, forget the details.

It will be of no surprise that Donald Trump will be the victor of the first Presidential Debate. In a matchup of lawyer vs. showman, the showman always wins in America. I fully expect Hillary Clinton to have an error free, fact based; sound game plan entering the debate. All of that means nothing against a showman. Worse yet for the Clinton camp everyone expects her to perform better than Trump, once again sound familiar? I also fully expect Hillary Clinton to sound like a lawyer, much the same way candidate Clinton sounded when she debated now President Obama. I remember those debates vividly. In the majority, if going by policy, Hillary Clinton was ahead by a country mile. Optics and delivery went to Barack Obama. He looked woefully informed on foreign policy but sounded sincere in guaranteeing no more foreign adventurism. Clinton played the sensible realist position, and lost. Eight years later she will be facing another showman.

This brings us to the general election: Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton, which feels less like a presidential campaign but a winner-take-all prize fight. That’s great for media ratings but possibly terrible for the republic. Here is where Donald Trump the politician must emerge for the republic to remain whole. So far indications lead me to believe otherwise. Saying Hillary Clinton is the devil, while joking or sarcastic or whatever, it’s very hard to concede and congratulate the devil. At least that’s how many Trump supporters may feel. Which, once again, unlike business where Donald Trump leads for Donald Trump this is politics and Donald Trump leads for the Republican Party. Like any political party the rank and file members will echo the sentiments of those who lead. From Lincoln to Grant, Kennedy to Nixon, the opposites of Carter and Reagan. Political discourse is shaped from the top down in America politics no matter how much people would have you believe the bottom up drives discussion.

Picture November 9^th, the election is over, after a tumultuous election season the first woman is elected to the highest office in the United States. This should be at least a moment of pride for all American citizens, a moment long overdue. But in this future scenario Donald Trump who lost has already, 99 days prior, claimed that the election was ‘rigged’ in her favor. The amorphous ‘something’ is afoot, ‘something’ is wrong, the nation will be torn.

I cannot assess the validity of the claim of ‘rigging’. By Donald Trump’s own words this has been ‘something’ he has heard from ‘people’. Until that is expounded upon the impending dread of ‘something’ will always be present. I do know that at the moment of this article’s publication polling indicates Donald Trump is poised for an electoral defeat. Remember those people replying to polls are no different than you or me, our neighbors, those we see at church. You may even have participated in one of those polls. (I have in the past)

It’s very difficult to rein ‘something’ in, partially because the ‘something’ is unknown or in this case only known to Donald Trump. However, for the republic to move forward it would be wise for Donald Trump to shed more light on this ‘something’ going forward it may even lead to the bridge that allows Donald Trump to concede to Hillary Clinton and then congratulate her on a spirited victory. Not only would a concession need to encompass truthfulness from the candidate but it would need to bring the Republican Party, and those supporting Donald Trump, along as well.

Very recent history shows conceding a political defeat is difficult and not all supporters may follow the candidate. Senator Sanders lost to Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Primary. A segment of his supporters at the convention boo’d him, continued to boo Hillary Clinton and Clinton supporters, and seem irreconcilable to joining with the Clinton campaign. This is OK for a primary; terrible for a general election. That segment of Sanders supporters still have other candidates to choose from whether it be Donald Trump, Gary Johnson or Jill Stein (assuming they are from a state where the Green Party is on the ballot). Their voices can still be heard in the ballots they cast, that equally goes for Republicans who will not vote for Donald Trump. But the general election is a different beast entirely. For a segment of the population to not follow the candidates lead of concede and congratulate, for a segment to outright reject the validity of the next President of the United States because of ‘something’- that grievance feeds into insurrection. I do not write those words lightly, any republic throughout the course of history can succeed or fail based on the general populations’ view of government validity. This is why floating the idea that the election is ‘rigged’ 99 days away from the actual election lays the groundwork for either an amazing concede and congratulate moment or a complete fracturing of American politics.

While that assessment may sound grim, I believe that Donald Trump has the ability to concede and congratulate. To use some Trumpisms ‘It’ll be the best post election endorsement, the best, never before seen’. Why? Because over and over again Donald Trump has proven a master rhetorician, from the primary season to general election campaigning, Donald Trump has proven that he can communicate like no other politician running for office today. It is safe to assume he can craft a message that will bring along his followers, even the most diehard, to move the republic forward. However, that is only if Donald Trump loses which may not happen. That is up to you, the American voter.

Here at Rain-Man of Politics we like to think toward the future with a mind to the past. Firstly any good analysis keeps this in mind and it also helps contextualize any topic. With that in mind a simple question popped up…

Can Donald Trump concede defeat and congratulate Hillary Clinton?

This is an interesting question. As he lays the groundwork for a ‘rigged’ election against Hillary Clinton one needs to consider the implications of the inability to concede defeat and congratulate your opponent in a republic. If you are reading this article, and a US citizen, then you have never experienced a candidate who cannot concede defeat. McCain congratulated Obama, George H.W Bush congratulated Bill Clinton, and Jimmy Carter congratulated Ronald Reagan. For anyone alive in the United States today this has been the norm and it helps move the republic forward after tumultuous elections.

The ability to concede defeat is at the heart of any republic. There are winners and losers, and if the republic is to survive, dare I say thrive, the grace of the losing party in any given scenario does as much to move the ball forward as the goals of the victor. Before you jump the gun and say “What about Hillary Clinton?” I already know the answer- if she loses she will congratulate Donald Trump and, most likely, talk about working toward a better America. It’s the standard playbook for any politician; she is a standard politician, the unwritten rule of the republic. Looking back to her legislative history there are loses, and she always works with the other side so her congratulating Donald Trump and conceding electoral defeat makes perfect sense.

Donald Trump is not a politician. Donald Trump is a businessman and congratulating your opponent in business usually does not happen. There are winners and losers just like in politics but the goal of a business is for the business (singular) to succeed, damn your competitor. In politics, specifically American politics, the goal is always to move the republic forward. Donald Trump has business failures, every large business does, I cannot remember him thanking anyone for outfoxing him on a construction deal or having a casino that performs better than his business.

However, there is some evidence that Donald Trump can at least congratulate political opponents. This occurred in the Republican primary. His unconventional campaign of media dominance through controlling the news cycle worked- he bested 16 lifelong politicians. This is no easy feat and will go down in the history books as something to study. The power of political media, something like that; whatever it’s called Donald Trump mastered the realm. He congratulated Marco Rubio, who could forget “the hands” comment. He congratulated Governor Christie on a spirited campaign, even saying the same for Ted Cruz after lobbing political grenades toward his camp at the end of the primary season. So the ability is there to congratulate, but what of concession? Donald Trump won the Republican primary, remade the party the Lincoln into the party of Trump. There was no need for a concession.

Once again the Never Trump movement strikes out into the darkness hoping that new candidate Evan McMullin will help keep Donald Trump from the White House. They should be careful what they wish for. While a certain segment of Republicans continue to rebuke Donald Trump and turn to alternative candidates they may end up paving a path that is easier for Donald Trump to win the presidency. Currently, Republicans who do not want to support Donald Trump have a few options: sit out the election, vote for Hillary Clinton, or vote for Gary Johnson. While there is the option to vote for Jill Stein her platform is the furthest from traditional Republican voters, so a very unlikely choice for any Republican voter. With the addition of Evan McMullin’s third party candidacy, and assuming the ability to get on the ballot in certain battleground states, the campaign may end up contributing more to a Trump victory than any misstep Hillary Clinton can make.

For example, Georgia and Utah in our current political era are traditionally Republican voting states in the presidential election. Trump absolutely has to carry these states if he wants to win the White House. However, both states seem to have sizable portions of the Republican Party that has no interest in voting for Donald Trump. Currently, as polling indicates, these voters are picking between Hillary Clinton and Gary Johnson. When they pick Hillary Clinton it makes Donald Trump’s path to victory very difficult. If they pick a third party or independent candidate, Donald Trump still retains his base support (usually around 30 percent in every Republican primary) without needing to worry about Hillary Clinton picking up support from irreconcilable Republicans from the Trump campaign perspective. It should be also noted that in general election polling Trump seems to always maintain the 30 to 35 percent base of support. Therefore, there is no need for Donald Trump to help consolidate the entire Republican Party, he just needs to reach out to disaffect Democrats and make sure to retain his base level of support. Part of the reason he won the Republican Primary was due in part to the amount of candidates in the race. If the primary season started out as Marco Rubio, Donald Trump, and Ted Cruz his likelihood of winning the Republican Primary would have dropped dramatically. Instead, Donald Trump was able to win multiple states with only 35 percent of the vote.

The Never Trump movement is creating the same scenario in the general election. If voters in Pennsylvania, and albatross for Republican candidates for decades, get to swing suburban voters to a third party option Trump’s chances of victory rise. Currently those voters are flocking to Hillary Clinton. If the viability of a third party candidate rises, even just as a protest vote, Hillary Clinton’s lead in the polls will evaporate to a statistical tie within the margin of error. So once again, in a state like Pennsylvania does Donald Trump need to achieve 50 percent of the vote? 45 percent? No, most likely he would need to aim for 40 percent which may very well be attainable from making sure his base votes and the traditional Republican voters who will always vote R in the ballot box get to the voting booths then any extra votes are then just a bonus. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton needs those suburban voters in Pennsylvania, and for that matter, all across the country- even in traditionally blue states. Fending off a conservative third party candidate from the Clinton perspective means tacking more to the center. Moving to the center for Hillary Clinton would be exposing the fractures within the Democratic Party between progressives and liberals. Make no mistake the Never Trump movement’s embrace of a third party candidate will hurt Hillary Clinton’s campaign more than the Trump campaign.

That being said, it may help with down ballot candidates. The ability to say they are supporting a traditional conservative option sounds nice on paper. However, in practice, Republican voters for the most part have shown they want a party that supports the presidential candidate. In the end it is up to current Senators and House of Representatives members to win their respective reelection campaigns on the merits of their own campaign, not of the national presidential campaign of Donald Trump.

The Never Trump’s vehement desire to keep Donald Trump from the entering the White House may easily give Donald Trump the best path to victory

Since its presidential election season the idea of a ‘silent majority” is once again hot news. After all, this voting bloc of individuals carried Ronald Reagan to his first term in office. They are also amorphous, in different eras different groups of people can become a “silent majority”. Ronald Reagan’s reelection hinged less on the “silent majority” but built upon the successes that captured the initial group of voters wary to make their opinion known. This usually defines a “silent majority” in America politics; voters who will absolutely cast a ballot, but voters who will not end up at political rallies, place bumper stickers on their car, call their local congressional representatives’ office, or volunteer for their candidates of choice campaign. All of those behaviors are attributes of active supporters not those of a “silent majority”.

While not doubting the candidacy of Donald Trump, or validity, I do need to wonder why he keeps claiming his campaign has captured a “silent majority” of voters. When there are signs stating “we are the silent majority” it is, in fact, a declaration of an active supporter. When a person claims they are among the “silent majority” but have a campaign sign on their lawn, once again an active supporter. However, in business it is always wise to rob your opponent of their perceived strength, equally true for politics. Contrast the Trump campaign active support to the Hillary Clinton campaign coalition of supporters. If you were just going to go by social media, that encompasses everything from Reddit to Twitter, and campaign rallies one would be shocked to learn Hillary Clinton defeated Senator Bernard Sanders. Senator Sanders’ rallies were packed events drawing tens of thousands across the entire country. The Sanders’ campaign, and his supporters, were more active on social media always getting the campaign platforms message across morning, noon, and night. However, Hillary Clinton managed to beat Senator Sanders by 3 million more voters and in total amassing more than 16 million total votes across all the campaigns. If it wasn’t for the actual act of voting it would have been easy to assume Senator Sanders was leading by a landslide with a lead that continued to grow.

As an aside, I would love for caucus states to give more credence to individual vote tallies and that being made public since transparency is always good for a republic.

To get back on track, I live in northern New Jersey; I saw signs for Senator Sanders on lawns as well as bumper stickers on cars. Hillary Clinton won New Jersey handily, giving her a campaign the confidence to assume delegate victory even before the California primary results were reported.  From an above view perspective it would seem the Clinton campaign has a better grasp on the current eras “silent majority”. This ranges from traditional Democrats who have been leaving the party for a more centrist approach to Republicans feeling alienated by the rhetoric of the Trump campaign. Remember the biggest quality of a “silent majority” is their silence. As with Reagan when he defeated Jimmy Carter the Democrats who ended up making the “silent majority” then were embarrassed to publicly voice their support. How could lifelong Democrats justify o their friends and family they were voting for a Republican? Turns out many of their friends were also voting for that very same Republican. So once again America is seeing a “silent majority” being formed, embarrassed to speak publicly of supporting a candidate. They aren’t putting up lawn signs or placing bumper stickers on their car, no, they are truly silent. Come November the United States may very well see the first female President, not because of raucous rallies or vigorous active supporters, but because of a “silent majority” that at one time helped a Republican reach the very same political office.