Donald Trump’s poor performance at the first debate opened a door of opportunity for Hillary Clinton. Frank Luntz, no friend of Democrats, stated that she had the best performance he had seen in 25 years. His focus group appeared to agree, giving Hillary the debate by a wide margin. Moreover, as the Fox Survey found her, her favorableness went up slightly to 45 percent.

For Republicans the notion that if anything goes wrong on Nov. 8, it all can be laid at Trump’s feet is popular. It shares many things in common with their nominee. For instance, when the New York Times exposed that perhaps Trump had paid little tax, it was Republican regulars who came to his defense. William Weld of the Libertarian party, that group that embraces benefits but takes no responsibilities, defended “the Donald” on taxes. Trump’s embrace of the ethos of the 1 percent is, for the GOP, not exactly an original idea.

Indeed, Trump is, in essence, not much different from Mitt Romney, who paid a paltry 14 percent. Of course this is totally consistent with traditional Republicans who measure all success in material terms. Rudy Giuliani, when he dubbed Trump a genius for avoiding paying much, was reflecting what Republicans have felt for 30 years. It is not just a throwaway line but an article of faith. Suddenly it is not about virtue but a coarse “I’ve got mine, Jack,” attitude.

Even Democrats in their zeal have embraced Mark Cuban with his “I’m a real billionaire” braggadocio. Never have the American oligarchs been so nakedly on display. Virtue is for the masses with Trump’s casinos and resorts, and Cuban’s sports franchises, giving them all the bread and circuses they desire. Pats on the back suffice, while the usual suspects monopolize the power and prestige.

Neither candidate has articulated a general vision of what they would do as president, but Hillary has come closer than Trump. Trump’s message of you can only fight the system if you know the system is beginning to be tiresome. His income tax policies nicely fit the present system with its abolition of inheritance taxes and large tax-cuts for the wealthy. It is simply old wine in new bottles. Trump speaks vaguely about freedom but his policies are the same as the GOP Congress. For Newt Gingrich, it’s not about policies but excessive tweeting.

For Hillary, it is about trying to offer an alternative to President Barack Obama while staying on track. No mention of single-payer health care, even if it becomes evident that Obamacare is getting pricey. Instead, she continued to peddle the dubious proposition of free tuition. Either the taxes need to increase or these proposals need to be altered. The “have it your way” approach of the Democratic Leadership Council has finally run out of alternatives. There are simply no loaves or fishes.

Unlike President Lyndon B. Johnson’s straightforward pitch for a Great Society, “We Democrats are for a lot of things and against mighty few,” at least gave the voter a template. Clinton cannot simply live off Trumpian mistakes, but to her credit she has so far. A clearer vision of a new Democratic alternative needs to be offered if Clinton is to win a meaningful victory.