♪ announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." lesley: good evening. i'm lesley stahl of cbs news and "60 minutes," filling in for charlie rose, who is away this week. we begin tonight with deborah tannen, a professor of linguistics at georgetown university. she has written extensively about language and its effect on relationships. her book, "you just don't understand: women and men in conversation," was a "new york times" best-seller for four years. it brought to light the differences between men and women's communication styles and the implications of gender for leadership.

she's written about hillary clinton for a long time as well as about the challenges of sexism in the presidential election. i am pleased to welcome her to this table. i've been following you for years as you have been following hillary for years because you write about the bind women are in. because if they're too assertive, it's a turnoff. if they're too gentle it's a turnoff. women in leadership, they just can't win. tell us what you have found. deborah: and the double bind is more than just the idea of you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. it's a situation where you have two requirements that you must fulfill but anything you do to fulfill one actually violates the other. when you think about qualities the required of a leader and qualities required of a man, they're similar. now, not everyone is going to fulfill those requirements, but if you do, you are fulfilling both.

for women, the requirements are being a woman are at odds with our requirements for being a good leader, so whatever she does to be a good leader, for example, be confident, talk about what you are really good at, that's going to be offensive if it comes from a woman, because the requirements of a woman are the opposite. you should be self-deprecating. you should down play what you have done. i give you a quick example, i wrote about women in the work place. all these things about leadership apply to women at work. there was a woman high up in management who tended to talk about things she had accomplished by saying "we," and that's something i've found in my research that women are uncomfortable saying "i did that," but she was told, you know, you really should own your accomplishments. you lack confidence when you say we. and we know so she listened to

you did it. that advice and began saying "i," and then she began hearing, "you know, she isn't as great as she thinks she is." lesley: this is something you wrote about that and hillary. "when she sounds tough. it doesn't feel real because she's a woman and women aren't supposed to be tough. so when she does that, she doesn't sound authentic. does the authentic complaint come from that? deborah: well, what does authenticity really mean? it means it feels right, it feels like the way this person is speaking is how i would expect somebody in that situation to be presenting themselves so the double bind is definitely playing a role there. it's not going to quite feel right if she as a leader is not self-deprecating.

that is one of the things that i think has led to people feeling uncomfortable. lesley: not liking her? deborah: yeah, and this likability thing came up back in 2008, remember, with obama. the whole question of the requirement to be likable is applied far more to women than to men right there. lesley: can we talk about voice for a minute? the quality of a woman's voice and how much of that is playing into "i just don't like her." deborah: the one we hear oftentimes is "why does she yell," and i've heard people say it has nothing to do with sexism, i just wish she would stop yelling. well, if you listen to any

public speaker who is addressing a crowd of thousands who are yelling back, they have to raise their voices, they have to yell. and all candidates yell because they're talking over a crowd. but it doesn't sit right when it's a woman. the worst thing for women is that we're expected to be emotional, but the emotion must not be anger. lesley: somebody wrote, i read it recently, that when men hear a woman who is speaking just a tiny bit harshly, what they hear in their heads is their mother, yelling "henry, get back in this house right now." you know, that scolding voice. deborah: scolding, strident, shrill -- i've heard people say, it has nothing to do with her being female, is that she is shrill. it's so important, we're not talking about sexism as a kind

of smear, you know, you're sexist. even if we only had to worry about people who were out-and-out sexist, they really want to hold women back, we wouldn't have this problem. it's that we all talk through language, and the language and the perceptions of women and men are influenced by expectations, how we expect women and men to speak, how we expect women to come across and the language we're given is different. lesley: you have studied the difference between men and women going back to when we are 4 or 5 years old. deborah: yes. lesley: and i asked you to bring some tapes because i've seen what you have taped with children. first we're going to run boys and how they talk to each other. >> mine is up to there. >> mine is up to the sky. >> oh! >> mine is all the way up to heaven!

>> oh! >> mine is all the way up to god! >> mine is too! lesley: they're competing about how high they can throw a ball. deborah: and it's often pointed out that boys are competitive and girls are cooperative. its true, their talk is competitive but also cooperative. lesley: the girls? deborah: the boys, too. they are cooperating in the way that being competitive is a way to have fun. i think there is accuracy to that, but we have to keep in mind that girls and bodies are -- boys are both cooperative and competitive but they do it in different ways. lesley: how do the girls, how do you tape them? deborah: two little girls i often compare with this one. girls spend more time sitting and talking where the boys spend more time doing things. one said, "did you know my baby-sitter amber has already

contacts?" you can think what a boy would say that. the other little girl says "my mom has already contacts and my dad does, too." and the first girl is so pleased, and she says, "the same?" and i've found on all my research i'm working on now on women friends, sisters, mothers, daughters, they spend a lot of effort to emphasize the ways they're the same. and if one woman says she has a problem and the other says yeah, i know, i have the same problem, then they both feel more connected. that's the focus on the connection rather than topping each other. and i've heard women complain that if my friend says i have a problem and she says, that's not a problem for me, the other one will say, "stop putting me down," because they're supposed to sit -- say you are the same. and this is a problem for women in authority where women in

particular have a negative reaction if you seem to be talking about ways you're better. girls don't like girls who seem to think they're better. lesley: does hillary as the first woman nominee in a party, does she have to work on this, do things to change to accommodate the public's feelings about men versus women? deborah: i think it's something she's dealt with her entire career. i first wrote an op-ed piece about this in 1992 and called it the hillary factor. bill clinton was running for president. lesley: that's when she was changing her hair every week? deborah: that's a perfect example right there. we talk about authentic. she was so authentic. she had mousy brown hair, kept it off her face with a headband and she was made fun of and criticized for that.

so then she got her hair colored and styled and was vilified for being manipulative. it was a little microcosm of what we have seen. lesley: i have a question about what i consider an unexplainable paradox. women in power, to a lot of people subliminally, there is a problem there. women in power, even the president mentioned this the other day. but women run households. completely, nobody questions it. i only do what my wife tells me. my wife decides how we spend the money, my wife decides where we're going -- the woman is totally in command at home. i know, ok, the woman has, that's her domain but there is something even more that that's just her domain. she's running decisions about money. why doesn't that translate into

the outside world? deborah: yeah, it's a good question. i remember years ago there was a candidate for mayor in d.c. who said "i'm going to clean house with a broom," and that did transfer to i'm going clean up the mess in government. for the most part, though, our associations with the power at home and our associations with power in the real world are different. lesley: it's all so interesting and i'm going to be thinking about all this when i'm home watching the debate monday night. thank you so much, deborah tannen. brilliant. deborah: it's been a pleasure. thank you.

lesley: seven weeks remain in the 2016 presidential campaign. hillary clinton leads donald trump nationally according to an nbc news/survey monkey weekly election tracking poll. among likely voters 50% support clinton and 45% back trump. last week she led by only 4 points nationally. the race across the so-called battleground states, however, is tied 42% to 42%. voters in these states say they're still looking for change, while the partisan divide remains deep. cbs news elections director

anthony joins me to discuss these developments and more. anthony, that poll says 50% for hillary clinton. is that the first time she's hit that mark? anthony: just about. this race is tight. this race is tight. i think you characterize it as tight because the polls are going to move around a little bit not just because of sampling, not many but there are some undecided voters still out there and i think what is really happening in these poll numbers too is hillary clinton has been the front runner, but she's kind of an uncertain front runner in that her favorable numbers have been high. in fact, the highest we've seen for someone in the lead. lesley: higher than his? anthony: higher than his but they both have high unfavorables and that has added uncertainty to this as well because you've got a candidate in the lead but so much of each vote says

they're just voting for clinton to oppose trump and just voting for trump to oppose clinton. and that as a whole other layer of uncertainty. lesley: well, i've been voting a long time, anthony, and i think i have personally voted against someone more than i have voted for. in all my years as a citizen. i don't think that's uncommon. anthony: if you go back to 2012 and said why did you vote for obama instead of romney or whatever, it's around 12%. -- 10%. here you see it is over one third of hillary clinton's vote. lesley: i have some questions about a cbs poll and your attitudes in general. based on what you just said i get the feeling that you're not ready to put any money down on who is going to win this election. that's what it sounds like. anthony: i'm not a betting man in that sense. but there is a dynamic here that i think we have to watch, and

it's not just the electoral college. we go back and forth about which states are flipping which way over the next few weeks but there is that larger dynamic, and it's the call for change. although clinton is leaving, what -- leading, what you see she has not yet matched that voter desire. and all year, they say donald trump is more likely to bring change than she is. so she's gone up in the polls. but you have to meet them where they want. lesley: let me ask you some questions about the theme of the night. why don't women like trump? what are you finding in the poll, the reasons? anthony: you start with the context. that is that republicans have struggled with women for a while, over the last few elections. democrats tended to do better with women in general. trump's coalition, if you will,

does pretty well with loyal republican partisans but the ones holding out, holding him back from hitting mitt romney's numbers, is suburban, moderate republican leaning women. they don't think much of hillary clinton, quite frankly but they don't think much of him. they don't like his policies on immigration, as a pours -- as opposed to his larger core. they think his rhetoric can be too extreme. and yet, there is a little kernel in there we've seen, even though they don't like hillary clinton, they don't think she's always treated fairly. donald trump has to keep that core base, keep them fired up, but he can't necessarily go after hillary clinton because he needs that segment of republican moderate women who might be turned off if in fact they think

he's not treating her fairly. lesley: but he doesn't have that segment. anthony: he's got to get them. leslie: he's very close. my next question, how vital is that to him? very recently he's been really trying to change his image about his attitudes and feelings toward african-americans. he did a lot of that yesterday. it's so obvious, so unsubtle. but can he change his image with the group we're talk about, the suburban republican women by just saying i sympathize so much with the black person who's been shot by a policeman -- can he change what he's been saying up to now like that? anthony: look, it's been a while. everybody has an opinion about donald trump at this point. he's not an unknown figure.

lesley: but you suggest these women are susceptible to a change in him. anthony: at least he's got to try. because what you do see, and some would say it's cynical, a bank shot. going after this constituency, african-americans, but really trying to signal to these voters here that he's not racist. leslie: it is obvious. but can it work? anthony: whether or not it works i think we know in the next couple weeks but so far it has not. lesley: but he's just starting this. anthony: he's just starting it. look, he's got to move the needle another few percentage points. he's got to get -- he's been lagging this whole time on just his base, just his republicans. people who would otherwise be voting for a republican nominee right now. he's around the low 80's and he's got to get to 90 to match where clinton is with democrats,

that's the gap. lesley: what don't men like with hillary? she has the mirror problem he has. anthony: again, democrats don't typically win men and don't win white men. so she starts with a deficit just by being a democrat. you always have to come back to partisanship with this. but there's a few interesting things. you read it sort of indirectly in the polling from a number of data points. you look at yes, men, they don't say directly in the polling, oh, we don't want to vote for a woman candidate. everyone answers -- that's the worst-kept secret in polling, that they won't answer a question if it's impolite. but they will say cultural change is going a little too fast. those are the men who are less likely to vote for hillary clinton. leslie: because cultural change would mean a woman president, right? anthony: it certainly could.

you ask them then, what is it that her voters must see in her to sort of put them in the other person's head a little bit and men much more likely than women say her voters must be looking for special privileges. so you start to see, is there a little bit in there of steering away. these men are also more likely to say in the polling that their cultural values are becoming rarer and less respected. so if you put all those data points together you start to see the shadow of something that could be interpreted as a resistance. but it's hard. but the other reason it's hard, it's hillary clinton. and that means that she has a very long track record. so it's hard to disentangle. she's a very well-known figure,

is what i'm saying. she's been in the public eye for a number of years. so she's not a generic person. -- it is someone who is very well-known. lesley: hard to see it as just genderism. do the men accept her as commander in chief? someone who could oversee the military? anthony: democrats certainly do. men overall, yes, but to a lesser extent than women. and it comes to what does it mean to be commander and chief? and men less likely than women to say she would stand up to foreign leaders. so, you know, things that might accrue to that. lesley: what do each one of them have to do very specifically, the main thing they have to get across, that maybe change a deficit or emphasize a positive? each one. anthony: you come back to hillary clinton for this change.

one of the things we talk about as the reason she is so low being viewed as authentic or honest and trustworthy. we talked about that all through the summer. one reason, you can't necessarily address that all at once in one debate, but the reasons that that sticks out is the public has long said throughout this year that they think -- effectively there are two sets of rules, one for politicians and one for people who have a lot of money in this economy, and one for them. and being able to address the idea that she can deliver change, fairness in an economic and political system that so many people think is rigged, is a central way to meet that moment. lesley: ok. i'm going to interrupt for a

minute because you are talking about conveying almost plans, issues, everybody else i've talked to talks about how much she has to convey a sense of genuineness and being tough but also being soft. they talk about personality issues with her. but you think it's more about issues? anthony: well, it's issues in the sense of is what can you do for me in this economy? lesley: but that's planned. that's -- that's not do i like her? you are thinking that's not that important? anthony: at this point, how much change can you effect in a candidate in six weeks? so for me it comes back to what's the central thing that voters are looking for this year and that's been a constant throughout. even on who they were picking in the polling, that's been a constant desire. lesley: what's that guy going to do for me? anthony: and how can they help me, the voter, navigate this

landscape that i now think is unfair? and that is why, too, last week we had the economic measures come out and everybody asked, if it's doing better, how come it's not for me? how come they still want change? the answer is let's doing better for somebody else who has advantages and not doing better for me. lesley: what does trump have to do? anthony: besides talking to those reluctant republicans who haven't come along, mainly women, he has lagged on the commander in chief task the what -- and that was the reason -- we say about that is, that's a cost of entry to the job. right? you have to be commander in chief to be president. all the other policies, maybe congress passes them, maybe they don't, but you have to meet that. how is it that you convey that you are ready and prepared to be commander in chief?

that's been his glaring deficit in the polling. lesley: that's his aim, to look presidential in this debate. thank you, anthony. you were great. ♪

♪ lesley: the election is now 46 days away, and the first presidential debate between

donald trump and hillary clinton is scheduled for monday night. with me to talk about the state of the race and what we might see monday are james fallows, a former speechwriter for president carter a national correspondent for the atlantic, dana perino, who served as george w. bush's press secretary and has just launched a new weekly political show on fox news, and frank bruni, a columnist for the new york times. welcome, everybody. i thought we would do two rounds. we will start with frank. frank, what is the most important thing that hillary has to do in the debate? frank: i think she needs to seem genuine. voters have said time and again they are worried about her trustworthiness and honesty. they see her as someone who has been in political life for so long. they see her as a vessel of ambition, fulfilling a destiny she charted for herself long ago. i think she needs to convince american voters she has a

genuine desire to make their lives better, and that she is doing this for them and not for her. lesley: i am coming back to that because i think she has striven to be genuine. and it is hard -- how do you go out there and try to be genuine? but, what do you think? james: i with think she would want to keep the benghazi hearings in mind. she very confidently and firmly, but not meanly, batted back one after another and showed she knows the subject matter. you name a topic, she will have given six speeches on it over the last year or two. temperamentally, she is calmly in command. i think the idea of being calm in her mastery and not distracted by the spectacle of donald trump is her goal. lesley: to look presidential. dana: and in the benghazi hearing, one of the things

hillary clinton was able to do was enjoy herself a little bit. so, when she was sparring with committee members, she said bring it on. i can take any of these questions. so, can she do all of the things you mentioned and appear relatable? likable? i often feel sorry for her that this is the perception, because i know people who work for her who say she is great. behind the scenes, you wouldn't believe it. but i do know what it is like to work for somebody who on camera is not the same thing. one of the most important things is if you were to watch the debate on monday night for five minutes, put it on mute, watch closed captioning, what do you see? can you relate? does she appear likable? that would be good for her. she is going to know her material. that is not the problem. it's the perception. lesley: ok, let's talk about what trump has to do. we will go one more round. frank: for him, it is much more

straightforward, but i do not know that it will be any easier. he needs to seem presidential. he needs to seem like someone who can control himself when he tries to -- has -- when he has some constraint best -- restraint. i think of him as a toddler in a high chair. he has to get through the meal without throwing his spaghetti on the wall. and it is very hard for donald trump to get through. it's important to remember that this meal is a long one. i went back and looked. he did 11 primary season debates. in only three of them did he have to speak for longer than 20 minutes. in only one did he have to speak for 30 minutes. if things go evenly, he will have to speak for close to 45 minutes on monday night, and he has never done that. lesley: well, he has done interviews that are long, and he filibusters. and he is pretty effective at it. what do you think?

james: he filibusters, but this is a very different setting. as we know, he's been able to tune out policy. just emerge and say, "oh, little maro or we will build a wall." it's much harder when a questioner is going to ask you to fill two minutes. i think his challenges, on the one hand, he said we cannot learn enough substance in the next five days to get through that time, so finding some way to seem in command without actually knowing the material, but also -- i have a little different vision than frank. i think he would come out best in this if he can make hillary clinton descend to his level, get into an insult contest. because he will win that. i think he wants to lower her down to a little marco type slugfest, which i think she will resist. lesley: he will turn to her and say crooked hillary. you think he will? james: sure, and she is preparing for that. dana: i think she is hoping for that, but is not going to get it. i think his team will say for 90 minutes, you will not insult.

you need to appear presidential. lesley: is that what you would think he should do? yourself? dana: here's the thing about donald trump. this year, he has tried to re-win the primary over and over again. those 40 million people who will vote for him will vote for him no matter what. neither of these candidates has shown an ability to expand their base. she has come a little closer on some things, but he has the momentum right now. if he can step over the low bar that is set for him, he will probably do well. frank: if he can restrain himself, he gains a lot the moment he steps onto that stage. i think most americans feel hillary clinton is qualified for the presidency. there was a poll that said they felt she was qualified for the presidency. under 40%, i think it was 35%, felt trump was qualified, which means he has people voting for

him who do not feel he is qualified. people cannot picture him as commander-in-chief. if he can stand there without great incident, without fumble, without throwing spaghetti on the wall for 90 minutes, same -- lectern shern is standing at, same stage, it immediately normalizes him in a way he is not yet normalized. lesley: it elevates him. dana: she will have things she can poke him with, but he is very good at figuring out what is the insult i will deliver to you that will get under your skin and make you have a moment where you look like you are irritated. i call it the dimension of aggression and strength. it's just the way it is and we have to accept it. if a man is seen as aggressive, it's a positive. if a woman is seen as overly aggressive, it's a negative. i don't think the clinton campaign had the right tactic after the commander-in-chief forum with matt lauer when the first thing they said was that

matt was being sexist. i don't think he was, and i don't think that plays well with women who might be thinking about voting for her. lesley: you raise a good point about what happened with matt. that's interrupting. let's do a little bit of rounding here on interrupting. can he interrupt her and not look like he is bullying? can she interrupt him and not look like she is lecturing? and poor lester holt, can he interrupt without having everyone come down on him. -- on him? my opinion is that neither of the candidates should interrupt each other. as george w. bush was doing to al gore 16 years ago, lester holt's obligation is to

interrupt and say, "what do you mean here?" to moderator is meant represent the republic and the truth. if he says, "do you mean to say, madam secretary, do you mean to say, mr. trump?" lesley: i remember him saying there you go again, marco rubio. i cannot remember what the topic was, but rubio kept repeating it. i thought it was very effective. a little humor and interrupting. james: i remember the moderator turned to then-governor reagan after -- i had just left the carter team, i remember so vividly. i think both of them lose by interrupting. one thing that is striking to me in public performances, donald trump does not stand up well to the physical presence of a strong woman. you recall the minister in flint a few weeks ago, carly

fiorina, dressing down. this is not an ideal dynamic for him. frank: one of his worst debate moments was when carly fiorina said i think every woman in america just heard what you said. his response to that was sputtering and pathetic. he never looked weaker or more at a loss. lesley: you don't use the word, "histrionics," but you talk about trump being operatic and theatrical. you seem to indicate you think it is a plus. james: for the primary campaign, which was essentially a merger of reality tv and political selection, everything about donald trump that made him a world wrestling performer and a reality show performer has all paid off. i have a fascinating interview with a body language specialist. he said while his range of emotions seems wide, it is actually smaller than most peoples. he is always doing something broad, so it is easier for him to convincingly say things he knows are untrue and the rest of

us know are untrue, because there are no tells that the rest of us would have. lesley: what about his business acumen and how much he is worth? all of that stuff? james: that is what he has been the most sensitive. the idea that he is a phony rich guy. she can read back to him outrageous things he has said himself or quote michael bloomberg. i think that was a moment at the democratic convention that got under his skin, when michael bloomberg said i am a new yorker and new yorkers know a con when we see one. frank: i don't know if it was your piece or another piece i read in the atlantic, but everyone should go read it. in another piece i read recently, when there was a , heted him five years ago did not nix questions about his hair or all of these other things, but his net worth, whether he was rich, he nixed any jokes about that.

i am sure the clinton campaign has noticed that, and there has been a lot of talk about how to go down that road. lesley: what if she pulled a trump and said something like so many people, everybody at the highest levels, says you didn't pay any taxes last year, and you are not even worth a billion dollars? what if she pulled a trump and did that? dana: the risky thing for her then is that you are at risk of not seeming genuine. if she delivers a line as if she has been practicing -- it something he's really good at. if they do come after him, one of the things donald trump can talk about is the clinton foundation and the global initiative. everybody has something to play here. lesley: but she can go right back. james: -- frank: the minute she goes after his tax returns, then he will come back with her about her

transcripts of the goldman sachs speeches. i don't think those are equivalent, but that is what he will say. and once they are in the mud, they are in the mud. everyone has seen trump in the mud already, and not her in the same degree. lesley: so you are all saying she should not go on the stage with the goal of getting under his skin. dana: i think she should in a way that's clever, but that does not seem like an act or that she is hoping he will respond. i think he will be disciplined and not respond. lesley: the "wall street journal" had a poll that came out today which i found amazing , because of the things that are not registering. deplorable, not registering at all. what is though, her e-mail. that is registering. with him, putin, not really. a little bit. his tax returns? nowhere. is that dead? if that comes up, does she gain anything from it? james: i think she should press

this every single day. ,f donald trump does not do it never again will there be that expectation in politics. it has been the norm since nixon, everybody has done it, even though it was romney kicking and screaming four years ago. everyone thought they had to do it. if trump gets away with it, it's bad. maybe it does not matter electorally, but it matters civically. lesley: if he does not know something, is that just they baked in? we know he doesn't know global capitals. if he doesn't know aleppo, does that matter? dana: i don't know if that was in the poll or not, but again, those 40 million people who are going to vote for him do not care about those things. they want change. he has the benefit of being the

outside candidate. he is different. he would bring something new, anti-establishment, not going to reward people in washington anymore. if you have 100 million people watching, that's not your twitter feed. that's much broader. so, if he doesn't know something, sure, i think it matters, but it won't necessarily matter to his core group. james: i think we saw in the -- not in the debate, but in an interview with chris matthews. down and chain of questions. if you are pro-life, what does that mean? who are you going to put in jail ? and i think a problem for trump is that he has not lived his life in the policy world, so -- he doesn't know that step one leads to step nine. so drawing that out as opposed to pop quizzes. frank: i think he can get away without knowing a lot of proper nouns.

the question is, if he is in one of those areas where he is fumbling for them and feeling at a loss, he is very confident, -- if he does not do it confidently, which is a weird thing to be confident in your ignorance, but a lot of successful politicians are confidence in their ignorance. if he loses his poise, i think that matters. poised in his ignorance, i do not think it will matter so much. lesley: he is really really adept at moving away from what was asked and moving onto a different plane. he is gifted at it. james: he is gifted and i watched all of the republican primary debates again. it is amazing how much time you -- he can fill with such a limited repertoire of thoughts. build the wall. great deal. we always lose.

and with just five or six things -- i think it's going to be harder to recycle those in this setting. and that is part of lester holt's obligation. dana: the other thing that will likely happen before monday night is there will be some sort of breaking news development. so, how do they think on their feet? how does it relate to something they have talked about. i was like to see how a candidate would respond to breaking news. frank: if the debate were tonight, they might not have specifically been prepared to talk about charlotte or tulsa. leslie: so, jim? -- lesley: so, jim? because you've studied not only what goes on in debates but what is important, can we talk about body language as being may be more important than the words they say? so not what they say, the wall and all that, but what son their -- what is on their face and how

they sound. james: setting aside how they sound first, something that is striking and that we reject in the political affairs world, but every moment you can remember from a debate is not the content of what somebody said, but how he or she responded, how dan quayle looked when lloyd benson dressed him down. i talked in my piece about the old axiom about turning the volume down, who is going to be seen as winning or losing. who looked comfortable, confident, not looking ashen, as rick perry did when he couldn't remember his third cabinet department. it wasn't that he forgot it. it was that he so obviously knew he had made a mistake. that has worked until donald trump. when i think back to the republican debates, if i had turned off the sound, i would have seen him sulking, frowning, he was not a cool cucumber. he felt petulant, put upon, nasty.

all of those expressions. i do not think it works for him. james: trump was behaving the way a successful wrestling promoter would. there is a famous video of him shaving the head of vince mcmahon. frank: is that the new metric for the debates? james: for the republican primary debate, where you had a very large field, one person was a well-trained reality show performer. plurality got you ahead. 50% ofcould get 20% to the people to find you the most interesting, then you win over. frank: but in a general election debate where you need more than a plurality, i am not sure it will serve trump well. lesley: it didn't hurt him in the primaries. dana: there are people who like listening to him on television. when you are watching, you kind of get a kick out of them. can you believe he just said that? he's pretty funny.

she can be funny, too. it is just a little bit harder for her. for her, it's like walking on a high wire without a net. lesley: is it harder for women to be funny? dana: i have heard that. i mean, i'm hilarious. so, i don't know. it is still new. this is a big deal. it's a historical moment. there's a lot of pressure on her. the women's vote is one thing that, in 2000, you had the soccer moms. 2004, the security moms. and really this year, based on the polling, married men with children are kind of the target demographic that both of these campaigns need to talk to. lesley: not republican women? dana: i think donald trump in some way -- the republicans have pretty much come home for him. not entirely, but a lot of republican women have strong

feelings against hillary clinton. they have for years. they are baked in. but if you look at a state like north carolina, college-educated white, men and women, tend to fall into her camp. that will be a big battleground state for so many reasons. frank: i do not think she needs to talk to any group so much as an emotion. the thing that has concerned me most watching her campaign, donald trump seems to understand intuitively how gloomy americans feel, how uneasy they are. how angry they feel. sometimes i feel like in trying not to be donald trump, trying not to be a scare monger, she goes too much in the other direction and americans do not hear from her. i get how you feel uneasy about this country's future and place in the world. i think she needs to nail that emotion in this debate in a way i do not think she has nailed yet. dana: she has also been cautious because i don't think she wants to offend president obama, whose

help she needs. she is in a tricky position with the party. the democrats have been in power for two terms. do you really want a third term? usually, americans do not. they go with another party. this election just turned up to be -- turned out to be up for grabs. lesley: they are really fighting for her and she has to walk a bit of a fine line. dana: president obama has to realize she needs to put distance between herself and him, just as she has had to put distance between herself and her husband. on policy. lesley: i want to do another round. what has surprised each of you the most about what we have experienced in this campaign so far? who wants to go first? jim? james: it's hard to see how anybody could avoid the answer of the success of trump because there has been nobody remotely like him in our national political history, nobody with

no public service experience whatsoever. we all know that on any given day he commits a gaffe or offense that in previous campaigns would stop somebody cold. there have been 100 so far. what it comes is a combination of the entertainment industry and his personality and the strategy of republicans not attacking him but each other, all of it has gotten him this far. i am really hoping this becomes a theoretical exercise two months from now, as opposed to understanding our situation as a nation. i think his rise has been the surprise. lesley: that's number one for everybody. second to that? frank: that's the only answer. a sub answer for me is the utter fusion in this campaign and debate of entertainment and politics. i have never seen the media sell an election so hard and with such theatrical value. the drumbeat, the countdown clocks. lesley: they put him on so much.

frank: i wish -- you see these numbers, more than 100 million people are going to tune into the debate. i would love to think that's a great yardstick for the vitality of our democracy, but i think they are tuning in the way they would to any spectacle in which something ugly could happen. i just feel like the complete erasure of the line between politics and entertainment is going to be one of the stories of this campaign we will be talking about well into the future. dana: i agree with both of those things. i will get a little granular. donald trump has spent so little money on his campaign and she has spent a ton of money. $50 million and it has not moved the needle for her. i don't know what that means for the future of politics. jeb bush was a great example. a lot of money spent. he did not really need to spend all that much money. and he has momentum right now. i don't know what that means going forward. lesley: here's what surprised

me, not as much as trump, and this is a little self-serving, but -- hillary hasn't talked about being a grandmother more. one of her problems is that, for may be sexist reasons i do not know -- but i have gone to a focus group, and grandmothers have all the best reputations in the world. they have all the qualities she needs to get. somebody in a focus group i sat in on asked what comes to mind when you say grandmother? you know, loving, wonderful, trustworthy, all of these things. so, i am surprised she hasn't played it up a little more. dana: i think they are overthinking in brooklyn. overthinking her age and her health. lesley: age is off the table. he's older. frank: i don't think health is deservedly on the table. i think this has been ridiculous. if health is on the table, then

it means a more loaded thing to use the term grandmother. that implies someone who is on in years. lesley: they need to decide what her biggest problem is. if it's that she's not warm, genuine, lovable, delicious, all of those things. it is one of her big problems. interestingher thing is that the republican party has had this week fight amongst itself. but the democrats are going to have one. that is coming. let's say she becomes president. she will never be pure enough for the left, and it will be a very difficult presidency. james: what has surprised me is the idea that everything in america is just unprecedentedly terrible, according to trump. the ash heap of history. i think what president obama has said we have terrible problems, but compared to eight years ago and compared to the rest of the world, there is no other country on earth whose prospects he would exchange with the united states right now. china where i used to live -- at

-- china, where i used to live, they have way more problems right now. at least half of the country has a narrative that the u.s. is in like 1861 or 1933. when things are actually getting better most places. a story i think the wall street journal ran, gop delegates were convinced the economy is in shambles except where they are from. dana: everybody hates congress except for their own congressman. frank: where is the crisis? gallup has been asking every year. they do this annual poll, and they ask who has the biggest economy in the world? since 2008, americans have been saying china. the largest number have been saying china. it has been erroneous since 2008, but it speaks volumes about where america sees our place in the world. lesley: i don't want to interrupt, but unfortunately, i have to interrupt. this is very sad, because i would love to go on this

conversation forever. what my favorite topics, politics. however, we have run out of time. thank you all for joining me. ♪

[seagulls cawing] ashlee: this is my happy place. it has been for a long, long time. goes --e fairy that ferry that goes from my parent'' house near manly beach to downtown sydney. there is nothing magical about the boat itself. tourists and locals ride this thing every day, but really that is what makes this this ferry so special. no commuter ride on the planet offers up more amazing city views.