‘Scorched earth’: Hillary Clinton digs into her unfortunately apt well of experience for debate advice for Harris

As we brace for what will likely be a wildly unhinged first presidential debate of the 2024 election cycle, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has apparently already offered Vice President Kamala Harris some good advice based on her experiences facing Donald Trump on the debate stage back in 2016.

In a recent interview with The New York Times, Clinton painted a Jackson Pollack picture of what Harris should expect from Trump: a “scorched-earth approach” aimed at mudding up the debate floor and tearing Harris down.

Clinton, who believes she won each of the three debates against Trump despite ultimately losing the 2016 election, emphasized adequate preparation and ensuring Harris stays firm and on message. “He doesn’t answer the questions. He doesn’t come with any specifics,” Clinton cautioned, highlighting Trump’s infantile tendency to deflect, gaslight, or otherwise bombard with foolishness rather than engage in any serious policy discussion—which is what the debates are for.

The former Democratic nominee’s essential piece of advice for Harris? “She just should not be baited. She should bait him.” Clinton has shown Trump “can be rattled” and pointed to her own debate moment when she called him a “Russian puppet” as an example of how to unnerve the former president.

Clinton’s review of Trump’s debate strategy as “scorched earth” is particularly apt given the unique dynamics of this matchup. Frankly, Trump is in some measure of peril because he actually stands to lose ground versus the energy we had in 2016. For one, he fully expected to engage with President Biden, who gracefully bowed out. With Biden, he could have attacked Biden’s stability, age, and a handful of other issues if he had been able to stay on task. Nearly everything that came with Biden is now out of the window and must deal with a newer, sharper candidate.

In fact, Trump finds himself in an unprecedented position, facing a formidable opponent in Harris, who represents multiple firsts as a woman of color on a major party’s presidential ticket. This leaves Trump with very few avenues for attack that won’t be perceived as sexist, racist, or both.

Any attempt to belittle or demean Harris could easily backfire, alienating the moderate voters each candidate needs and further energizing the Democratic base. Moreover, Harris’s background as a prosecutor and her debate experience make her a highly problematic opponent for Team Trump, one who is extremely unlikely to be easily rattled by Trump’s provocations. Her steadiness alone would constitute a win, given his entire game will be to push her immediately into the mud.

Sources close to Harris’s campaign indicate that her debate approach will draw evident contrasts with Trump on character, policy, and disposition. By painting herself as optimistic and forward-looking while characterizing Trump as divisive and self-serving, Harris aims to appeal to voters who are not looking for a bizarro sequel of the unnecessary chaos and controversy that defined the bulk of Trump’s presidency.

The problem for the former president is that he doesn’t have a viable plan to counter a narrative he propagates on a near-daily basis. Trump cannot present as a reasonable candidate, nor can he tomb the idea that he is divisive and self-serving—he has to be even more divisive and self-serving. He has to present as unhinged as the bulk of his base, which doesn’t seem a winning strategy—unless he can quickly unseat broad control of the conversation into a complete quagmire of a debate and somehow put Harris in an unlikely chase position.

More importantly, he would have to figure out a way to get people to see Harris as someone to dislike without utilizing evident dog whistles. In a recent piece for The New Republic, Michael Tomasky wrote: “He knows there’s only one way he can win: He needs to get America to hate Harris. Right now, people don’t. They don’t adore her, but they don’t hate her.” The problem here also is that he’s incapable of the nuance necessary to tease dislike out of people who aren’t already voting for him.

Ultimately, Clinton’s insights serve as a reminder of the high stakes involved. Remember, Clinton may have won her debates with Trump but lost the election. This is mainly because Trump voters aren’t swayed by a debate anyway. To be clear, the Vice President hardly has a lock on the election, despite the massive positive energy she’s created. Harris’s task will be to rise above any ridiculousness of Trump’s tactics and present a compelling (and competent) vision for America’s future.