The bitterness and acrimony in the second presidential debate has led some to call it the “nastiest debate in presidential history,” leaving many of us not optimistic about the tone of this week’s final presidential debate. Though many have since focused on the insults traded, Donald Trump Donald John TrumpOmar fires back at Trump over rally remarks: 'This is my country' Pelosi: Trump hurrying to fill SCOTUS seat so he can repeal ObamaCare Trump mocks Biden appearance, mask use ahead of first debate MORE’s ominous threats, and even his non-verbal aggression, the final question of the night — a lesson for the final few weeks of the campaign — seems to have been lost: uncommitted voter Karl Becker pleading with the candidates to frame their rhetoric towards each other positively.

ADVERTISEMENT

The reaction from the town hall audience was telling — they applauded, nodded their heads, and expressed frustration with 2016’s overwhelmingly negative race. To win undecided voters like Becker, in the third debate this week Hillary Clinton Hillary Diane Rodham ClintonButtigieg stands in as Pence for Harris's debate practice Senate GOP sees early Supreme Court vote as political booster shot Poll: 51 percent of voters want to abolish the electoral college MORE must return to her April message of love and kindness, eschew superiority, and disassociate herself completely from Trump’s implosive toxicity.

Becker was not alone that night. The opening question challenged both candidates — though it’s difficult to see how this was not aimed at Trump — on how their “mature audience” behavior could be affecting America’s youth.

Later, another uncommitted voter asked whether each candidate could be a devoted president to all the people in the United States. These groups include Clinton’s over-broad “deplorables” and Bernie Sanders Bernie SandersButtigieg stands in as Pence for Harris's debate practice Bernie Sanders warns of 'nightmare scenario' if Trump refuses election results Harris joins women's voter mobilization event also featuring Pelosi, Gloria Steinem, Jane Fonda MORE supporters who are “still living in their parents’ basement”, as well as women and virtually every minority Trump has managed to offend.

Having carved out core loyalists and supporters in the primaries, moving the needle in terms of votes has become increasingly difficult for both candidates in the broader, less zealous electorate — short of exogenous shocks such as the “Access Hollywood” Trump tape leak from this month or further leaks from Wikileaks regarding Clinton. Thus, convincing undecided voters is the slow but steady game until November 8th.

This is still tough for Clinton, dogged by (sometimes not-so) latent sexism and whose attempts at genuine kindness may play into the narrative of being fake or dishonest. Moreover, she faces a candidate who continues to say highly disturbing and worrisome things — things that should not be ignored.

In contrast, Trump’s campaign and his surfeit of divisive and abrasive remarks make it nearly impossible for him to come across as kind — especially since he has now effectively alienated the GOP establishment along with many moderate and even conservative Republican voters as a result.

But these are issues that have created and simply feed the current Trump versus Clinton loyalist divide — what Clinton should now recognize is that undecided voters are additionally looking for a candidate that will treat all people — including her/his opponent — with integrity and respect.

It means changing the way issues are discussed and debated, not ignoring them altogether.

It certainly doesn’t mean acquiescing to Trump’s highly dangerous or problematic rhetoric — instead Clinton must shift the focus away from Trump to personalizing the content of what he brings up, and addressing the underlying fears and motivation behind it with a better, more appealing solution. Instead of playing Trump’s game in his court, cut him out of it altogether and address the electorate directly.

If we look to America’s past at the first Kennedy-Nixon presidential debate of 1960, Kennedy described his opponent as follows:

“I think Mr. Nixon is an effective leader of his party. I hope he would grant me the same. The question before us is: which point of view and which party do we want to lead the United States?”

This is the rhetorical return from ad hominem Clinton must steer the next debate towards. Finishing with kindness is often far more potent than starting without, and it has the added effect of embracing what writers like Max Harris and Philip McKibbin are calling a politics of love:

“Love requires that we recognize the importance of all people, and a politics of love would encourage us to ensure that this recognition informs every political decision that we make — in deciding whether to vote, and who to vote for; in running for office, or deciding whether to support those who are; in helping to make policy, or deciding how to respond to it."

In this way it echoes Matthew 5:44, “But I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you”. This construction of universal love extends beyond Christianity — across faith and morality, and into the homes of every American.

To maintain her lead and grow it, Clinton needs to be firm but embrace this rhetoric of love and kindness now — not just for Wednesday’s debate or to win the presidency, but also to win the electorate more broadly beyond it.

If Clinton fails to have this longer-term horizon in mind then she could pave the way into 2020 for a far more tactical politician to capitalize on Trump’s damage to America, devolving further and more dangerously than 2016 already has.

It is imperative that she cut out Trump’s toxicity from her campaign going forward and does everything she can to reach out to those who have erstwhile seen her as superior, oppositional and antagonistic.

Bring back love and kindness to this race, Hillary." It’s time to finally, and completely sink Trump.

Bhorat is a political commentator, media and entertainment junkie, and technology futurist residing in Santa Monica, USA. He was one of the recipients of the Rhodes Scholarship for 2012. He can be found on Twitter @bhoraticle.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.