\n<\/p>\n
9. It\u2019s okay to show some vulnerability.<\/strong> I think this is the hardest thing for you. But most voters would be entirely sympathetic if, for example, you said, regarding an issue like fracking: \u201cYou know what? We know a lot more about fracking today than when I initially opposed it. We know that we can extract gas safely. That it\u2019s cleaner than oil. That it provides needed energy and gives the United States a strong export and a competitive global advantage. I don\u2019t change my mind for political convenience, but because I\u2019m open to new information and growth. Hel-lo<\/em>!\u201d<\/p>\n 10. At one point, accuse Trump of trying to blow up the debate itself.<\/strong> Already, the guy\u2019s been bashing ABC, the network that will broadcast the debate, and impugning the reputations<\/a> of Disney Entertainment co-chair Dana Walden,<\/strong> who oversees properties including ABC, and her husband, producer Matt Walden<\/strong> (both of whom are friends with Harris and her entertainment-lawyer husband, Doug Emhoff<\/strong>), claiming in his latest Trump-as-martyr conspiracy theory that the couple, whom he did not identify by name, would give the Harris team the questions in advance. This is a ruse from Trump\u2019s (and his late attorney-mentor Roy Cohn\u2019s) tired playbook that he has shamelessly used in the courtroom and in his objections to the outcome of the last election: sow a sense of doubt about both the eventual results and the very nature of the proceedings. The implication? That the debate will somehow be \u201crigged\u201d to his disadvantage.<\/p>\n Criticizing the network and an executive who oversees it is demeaning; it\u2019s intended to demean\u2014and it has the scent of flop sweat, of a candidate and a campaign fearing their own shadows and deliberately attempting to set low expectations for the audience. You should call him out on it. You might even want to quote the Army lawyer who, in the divisive 1950s Red Scare hearings, turned the tables on Senator Joseph McCarthy when he rebuked the lawmaker<\/a> in front of a national audience, asking: \u201cHave you no sense of decency, sir?\u201d That one phrase, in effect, helped trigger the senator\u2019s swift public demise.<\/p>\n In sum:<\/strong> There are three moments in a presidential campaign that allow you to predictably affect your public perception in the eyes of undecided voters\u2014your announcement, your convention speech, and the debates. You\u2019ve done brilliantly with the first two, but the third may be the most important, which is why I think it\u2019s really smart that you\u2019re locked down right now in debate prep. My old colleague Matthew Dowd,<\/strong> a very intelligent political strategist, theorizes that one debate equals roughly 20 days on the campaign trail. That\u2019s huge when game day is only two months out.<\/p>\n