Why Clinton might thank Trump for making this election personal

A week after the debate, it is the line we can’t stop talking about. Donald Trump’s veiled threat to raise personal issues and really divert from the policy discussion.

In the wild and wacky world of election 2016, his campaign thought he deserved praise for not raising scandals like Lewinsky. It is a line most elections don’t cross, but Trump wants to go personal. He thinks he has an advantage there.

{mosads}Yes, the man who grades women on their looks, has featured in an adult film, has a history of racism and who said he could shoot someone and still become president wants to go personal.
It sounds like a joke, but that is where this election has led us.

While we have two candidates who have led decades in the public eye, the Clintons have tried to separate their professional lives from their personal. Of course, they haven’t always been successful at doing this.

Next to Trump, who seems to actively fuse his personal and professional pursuits, they are more clear on the line between professional and personal and with good reason.

Voters, by and large, aren’t interested in the personal lives of politicians. They don’t want someone who will be plastered over the cover of tabloids, but someone who will discharge the powers of state.

Robert E. Denton, of Vanderbilt University, found in his review of the 2000 Presidential election that the Lewinsky scandal wasn’t just detrimental to Bill Clinton but Al Gore too.

Indeed, these are vexed issues for most candidates. Masses of research, and our own experiences, remind us that positive and policy-focused campaigns are what voters want. Even under extreme pressure.

Matthew S. Winters, a political science researcher at the University of Illinois, found in a 2013 paper that voters were willing to overlook indiscretions for politicians who can effectively do the job.

So when Clinton sees Trump charging toward her with fringe concerns from the 1990s and her husband she must be unafraid to slam him but always pivot to policy.

This election isn’t about who can deliver the best one line attack, but who is best capable of managing what are increasingly complex issues.

Australia’s first female prime minister, Julia Gillard, recently wrote about her own experience with personal gendered attacks. After dismissing and ignoring them she spoke about against misogyny. “The overwhelming response to my comments [about sexism] was evidence that I had touched a nerve, and many women voiced their support,” she wrote.

Her experience is one Clinton has watched closely and one she can replicate in this campaign.

Negative, personal and divisive campaigns pitting sides against each other aren’t what voters want. The entirety of American democracy shows that the electorate wants a positive and uniting plan forward.

This is the most complex election in living memory. Both the issues facing candidates and the approach they are taking is testing the campaigns and voters.

But if Clinton can take anything from other female leaders and research, it is that she must continue to focus on what she can do for America.

The policy nerd within her may be her saving grace against personal attacks.

Conrad Liveris is a workforce diversity specialist and an expert on women in leadership.

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