D. J. Trump is the most glaring underdog in tomorrow's presidential debate since an apparently scared stiff and near hysterical Muhammad Ali faced the fearsome Sonny Liston for the heavyweight boxing title in 1964.
The comparison is a bit of a stretch but not too much of one. Consider the comparisons:
There's experience. The bout was Ali's first for the title while Liston was an old hand, the reigning champion, and a scary-looking dude, a pugilistic Thor with fists (15 inches around) the size of hammers. By comparison Ali looked like some sort of human sacrifice.
Moreover, while this debate is Trump's first one-on-one encounter, Hillary Clinton's been through the drill countless times as both a Presidential and Senate candidate and in numerous appearances before hostile congressional committees.
As a debater then, Trump is, you might say, a comparative virgin. Can't say that for his opponent.
Then there's style. Ali was a dancing master, as agile at slipping punches and making his adversary miss as Trump is at evading queries, confounding questioners with non-sequitur answers, and laying down a trail of lies that an Indian scout couldn't follow to a coherent conclusion.
The referee in the Liston-Clay (as Ali he was then known) brawl had a difficult time. Ali actually tried to quit half-way through the fight but was blocked by his handlers and Liston was unresponsive to instructions, even from his own corner. Hopefully, things will go more smoothly for Lester Holt, the debate moderator tomorrow.
But with Trump. . . .well, you never can tell.
Ali, a seven-to-one underdog, won that bout stunning the fight game cognoscenti. A clear-cut Trump victory tomorrow night, however unlikely, would be no less a stunner and could tilt the election decidedly in his favor. But by all odds Hillary should come out ahead or get no less than a draw.
Then again...stuff happens.
One complicating factor is the question of just what will decide who wins - or whether anyone wins.
At the risk of oversimplifying, a case can be made that this is a clash between Clinton's substance and Trump's style. A first-blush conclusion would be that in a contest for leadership of the Free World substance (especially in foreign policy) would prevail.
It's the chalk player's choice, as they say at the track. The safe choice - but not necessarily a winning one.
Style can win the day as a cool, composed John Kennedy demonstrated in 1960 when he was the clear winner over a sweating Richard Nixon among those who viewed the debate on television. But Nixon, a college trained debater and every bit as much a policy wonk as is Hillary, scored big among those who only heard the debate over radio.
Style also won for Ronald Reagan in 1980 though by 1984 he had both style and substance (a recovering economy) going for him.
What happens if neither candidate is the clear-cut favorite on style or substance? Can't happen, you say? Well it did once or came close - in the Michael Dukakis-George H. W. Bush debate in 1988.
Neither had any style; together they defined drab. It was an election a bit like this year's in which neither party was altogether happy with its nominee, though the disaffection then was far from what we see today.
Hillary has the easier role in pursuit of style points: just be herself and stick to the issues.
She knows them as well as any nominee in modern times, and faces an opponent who juggles issues and policy positions as if they were live coals. At one point he didn't know what the nuclear triad consisted of, as if he'd acquired his foreign policy knowledge, as the old gag has it, at the International House of Pancakes.
Trump's style challenge is equally simple: he can't be entirely his shoot- from-the-hip self even if that risks angering his fans. He's got to look - and, more important, sound -
"presidential."
He'll doubtless come in with a script but will he stick to it? That's the test for the Donald. He enjoys the advantage of diminished expectations so he doesn't need to win - just avoid a KO.
A loss by split decision will take him to the next debate still a viable candidate. A knockout loss would probably doom his candidacy and some down-the-ballot Republicans as well.
Whom do I think will win tomorrow? That's pretty thin ice for a pundit, but here goes: I'm betting Hillary by a decision. No knockout but a clear win.
It's a chalk player's call.
More John Farmer columns
Bookmark NJ.com/Opinion. Follow on Twitter @NJ_Opinion and find NJ.com Opinion on Facebook.