Charles Krauthammer said that he does not think Hillary Clinton has much of a message, and that both candidates are too well known for people’s minds to change easily, while the major factor that can create that change is debate performance:
The reason she hasn’t seized the message is because she doesn’t have a message. We saw it in that ad. What was that? “I like children” and “I will fight for children.” There has never been a more banal “message” in political history. She doesn’t have one. She’s essentially a continuation of Obama who is reasonably popular, so I think she has that advantage. The economic numbers were a little bit better when they came out a few days ago. But that’s it. It’s the reason why she’s dumped all this money, outspent Trump by an unbelievable amount — a ratio of five to one? Five to one. It leaves no impression. I thought the most impressive of all the numbers “was certain of your choice.” They are both over 90%.
It’s growing in impressiveness. Yogi once said, “It gets late early here.” It’s getting late early, especially for her. She’s been known for 30 years. He has been ubiquitous on the air for 15 months. People know who they are. I’m not sure what her advertising advantage is going to at this point. What is there to say? Which means, I think, in the end that the importance of these debates is going to exceed the importance of any debates in any race that we have ever seen.