Does Clinton need to be more direct?

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

One thing which I have noticed about Clinton (in the Dem debates, etc.) is that she has a tendency to answer questions in ways which capture all of the nuance of the situation, but where her answer may not be clear enough to be fully convincing (not "getting to the point" quickly enough). Given that this is likely hurting her "trustworthy" ratings, should she be making more of an effort towards directness and straightforwardness when in a debate or a press conference?

[Xing]

I think the debates should serve as a chance for her to be a bit more direct and get some sound bytes in. She'll have to "get to the point" pretty quickly in her responses, considering the time restraint. Also, I think that when criticizing Trump, she'll probably have to do it in layman's terms. If she carefully and meticulously deconstructs his statements, most undecided voters are going to yawn. She'll need to make some simpler statements such as "that's ridiclous."

[Person Man]

It will probably butt hurt people who love how the Donald tells it as it is.

[DS0816]

She should not have run.

[Mr. Smith]

She tried that with, the "basket of deplorables".

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Not really.

The structure of the race favors her.  Trump, after his disastrous post-convention performance, has "won the week" just about every week and has made real progress, but he's still behind, and there's a bedrock of support for the Democratic candidate, even one as unpopular as Hillary, that he hasn't been able to chip away at.

Right now, Trump leads in all of the Romney states plus OH, IA, ME-2, and NV.  FL is truly too close to call.  He could get CO.  But VA is now out of reach.  I can't see where Hillary is going to lose because of HER style.  The rest of this election depends on what Donald Trump does.  That's something Hillary ought to make work for her if she's smart.