Sept. 26's general election debate, the first of three, has the potential to swing the election one way or the other.
For Donald Trump, who has somehow repaired his dismal poll numbers to tie Hillary Clinton in recent weeks, the debate could be his chance to overtake her. The bar is so low it's practically on the floor for Trump to be considered the winner — he's always been judged on a different, and less discerning, scale than Clinton, so he doesn't need to worry as much as she does about being a sharp, accurate opponent. If he manages to stay vaguely on-message and avoid openly insulting her appearance, claiming she's on her period and saying overtly racist things, he will exceed expectations.
He can further exceed expectations by displaying the barest shred of factual knowledge about any topic that is brought up during the debate — if he continues in the fashion of the GOP primary debates, when Marco Rubio memorably schooled him on what the nuclear triad was, he risks looking even more incompetent and short-sighted than he actually is. Luckily for the Donald, the debate topics, which are "America's Direction," "Achieving Prosperity" and "Securing America," could remain entirely in his extremely limited wheelhouse. At the very least, it is possible that he will be able to avoid duking it out with Clinton over foreign policy, a fight he would almost certainly lose.
One possible pitfall for Mr. Trump is this: General election debates are watched by many more people than are primary election debates, and some of those people might still be deciding who to vote for. While it is doubtful that his supporters will be swayed by live or post-debate fact-checking, some of the undecided voters who have not been paying much attention to his previous lies might go blue if he says anything egregiously wrong enough to make him look ignorant or incompetent.
Never a very proficient debater, Trump relies mainly on zingers and silence — the latter of which is an option not open to him in tonight's debate. Among nine other candidates, he could hide, but with only himself and Clinton, it's doubtful that he can manage to remain unremarkable for the entire evening.
Clinton will succeed in the debate if she counters Trump sharply and factually — coherent messages and telling the truth are two of Trump's weak points, so she can come out looking like the better-informed, better-prepared candidate if she is able to counter lies with cold, hard facts and defeat slapped-together halves of sentences with logical points. She has a reputation for coldness and calculation, but those will not be negative traits if they can cut through the clumsy, rambling nonsense that Trump is prone to.
But his unique style could be a problem for Clinton, who has been preparing for the possibility of two Trumps — the on-message Trump and the freewheeling Trump who won the GOP primary. Although Clinton has the advantage of being a much more skilled and experienced debater than Trump, he could topple her with one well-placed joke about her shady past. He certainly has the material to work with, and we tend to remember the best line of the night better than who was the most proficient arguer. And let's be honest, she's unlikely to be the one to deliver that line.
Her best bet is to stay smart, stay presidential and utterly humiliate him with his own ineptitude. Depending on which Trump she ends up facing, that may be easier or harder to do.
Only one thing is for sure: The debate should be interesting.