The 2016 election had quite a few unique aspects compared to previous ones.
For instance, the two rivals' attacks on each other carried a life-or-death flavor, with razor-sharp language.
Trump directly nicknamed Hillary "Crooked Hillary." At the Republican National Convention, the delegates rhythmically chanted to "lock her up"!
Hillary's camp wasn't about to back down: They declared Trump's moral standards lacking, calling him a street thug who, with the nuclear button in his hand, could trigger a global catastrophe.
Plenty of Democrats also said Trump colluded with foreign powers, sharing ideals with Putin, possibly even financial ties.
Hillary herself, at her most recent fundraiser, declared Trump's supporters "deplorables," because only "deplorables" would support a "deplorable."
The gunpowder smell was thick enough to explode.
In front of the TV, Martin and the girls each adopted their most comfortable postures—some lounging on the sofa, some sitting on the floor, some sprawled on cushions—watching the heated pre-debate coverage.
When they saw Hofstra University's students role-playing the candidates and moderator for the upcoming TV debate, with the boy on the left perfectly mimicking Trump's gestures, everyone burst into laughter.
Sofia asked Martin, "Do you think Trump can win?"
"Win what? This debate or the election?" Martin asked.
"I mean the debate," Sofia said.
Martin shrugged nonchalantly. "One debate doesn't mean much. It's not the last century anymore—with online promotion fully rolled out, TV debates' influence has dropped a lot. They might still affect some voters' choices, but the impact isn't huge. There are too many ways to speak out now."
"But I still favor Trump in this debate."
"Though his debating skills are average—uh, okay, he basically has no debating skills unless it's being overbearing. But Trump's appeal isn't in his debating prowess. As a reality TV host, this guy has star power. His appearances and speeches can always bring thick dramatic flair."
"When others speak, he constantly interrupts, utterly impolite. When he speaks, he rambles nonsense, answers off-topic, freestyles—the moderator can't even stop him. He not only argues with other candidates but often with the moderator too, spouting wild words, cursing freely. Rules and etiquette mean nothing to him. For a traditional politician like Hillary, she's never faced an opponent like this and has no idea how to handle it."
"Um, more importantly, the public seems to really like hearing his nonsense—like watching a show."
"Speaking of another debate factor: thick skin. Both are pretty qualified there, with Hillary edging out a bit. It's hard to say who wins or loses, but Trump should gain the upper hand."
At 8:00 PM, the debate officially began.
The first 30 minutes went exactly as Martin predicted—Hillary was indeed on the defensive.
Trump came out swinging on "free trade."
As a consensus of both Democrats and Republicans, the free trade ideology had always been supported by the elite class, but it led to manufacturing fleeing the US, massive job losses. The unemployed blue-collar workers hit by this were Trump's main supporters.
As a representative of the elite aristocracy, Hillary had always been a free trade supporter, only recently flipping to oppose last year's signed TPP after sensing the public wind shift during the primaries.
Trump criticized politicians like Hillary for lacking their own convictions, easily changing stances for votes—spouting free trade for thirty years, signing so many deals that let other countries take full advantage, completely ignoring the impact on middle- and lower-class livelihoods. Now, seeing it's bad for votes, she flips again. The public shouldn't trust such flip-flopping, unprincipled sly politicians.
Under Trump's assault, Hillary seemed evasive, her responses feeble, on the defensive.
But Hillary was a veteran politician after all; though her weakness was hit, she still stubbornly refused to admit fault. being a basic politician quality.
Then, she found an opportunity to counterattack.
During the tax discussion, Hillary suddenly asked: "Excuse me, Mr. Trump—as presidential candidates, we must set an example for the people. On taxes, every candidate has released their returns, but you haven't. Is this because you're guilty, perhaps did something unconscionable?"
Trump was speechless.
Seizing the momentum, Hillary smiled, shaking her head with mocking words, speculating the reasons: "I think the reason is simple—either Mr. Trump isn't as rich as you claim; or you didn't donate to charity as you proclaimed; or you're deep in debt to banks; or you paid no taxes at all, too ashamed to let people see..."
Using such speculation to attack an opponent in debate isn't a glorious tactic, and countering it isn't hard: The direct way is to ignore it; the low way is to mimic, counter-speculating Hillary's emails or health—this might suit Trump's usual rogue style best.
But Trump, after all, lacked experience.
He chose the worst method—directly responding to Hillary's accusation.
Hillary accused him of not paying taxes; he pounded his chest in loud rebuttal, but his words clearly lacked logic: One moment "I know how to use the laws," the next "Um million taxes aren't just taken by politicians to waste?"
Then he added: "I did business to make money—it's not illegal."
Hillary accused his company of once being sued by the government for racial discrimination; he didn't even deny it, saying: "We settled out of court; the parties involved say nothing more."
Then he tacked on: "Many real estate companies get sued; separating white and black communities is our tradition."
Such rebuttals, to others' ears, basically admitted Hillary's accusations weren't unfounded.
Clearly, the inexperienced Trump had fallen into Hillary's trap. Judging by how often Hillary shook her head, you could tell how smug she was now.