For the second week in the United States, there is discussion about which presidential candidate likes or hates women more and how that attitude is expressed. However, the "women problem" that has captured the attention of the public isn't that important.

The candidates will evade, and the accusations against them will fade. The most important thing is that Clinton still holds a position close to Bernie Sanders' socialism. She is making an effort to assure voters that a bright future awaits them.

Donald Trump is repeating his accusations against Clinton and turning women against her. He managed to get a few women voters to tell the world about the surprising sexual adventures of certain members of the Clinton family. There was an accusation leveled at Bill Clinton that he raped a 12-year-old girl. A dark-skinned son of Bill Clinton was found or, more precisely, that is how he presented himself to the press. Hillary combated these revelations with recordings of Trump from a decade ago about how he kisses and gropes ladies without their permission.

All of this filled up newspapers, magazines and TV shows, and, it seems, took the undivided attention of the public. However, it is not the issue of women that is the most important in American politics, and it isn't even the issue of security and protection from terrorism and crime. Here, both candidates are saying the same thing: I will be able to defend the people, I can solve the problem. What's more important than these mutual promises is what's really worrying all Americans: social and economic problems.

It is here that Clinton still looks stronger than her Republican opponent. Clinton is promising Americans millions of new jobs, like Barack Obama did before her. At the second debate she said, "I want to be president for all Americans... I want us to heal our country" Trump parried, remarking that he will help African-Americans and Latinos. Clinton said that America will become greater under her; Trump said that it will be reborn and will regain its long lost greatness.

All of this sounds like an attempt to convince the father of the bride to give his daughter to either one or another suitor because he promises to be good to her and love her. But this isn't a conversation with the bride herself, the voter.

It's a shame that Trump has fallen for this game, if you take into account his constant assertion: "She's lying." The Republican presidential candidate is clearly getting carried away by the broad rhetoric of seducing the electorate when before, his strength was in having a direct dialogue with them. In the debates, he always has to address his opponent, even if he sees that the discussion is getting away from the main problems of the United States; and Trump has been talking about them for many months. He is trying to outline his principles during the debates, but this isn't really working out for him. As a result, Clinton supporters declare her the winner of the debates with a sigh of relief.

It's still an open question how much Clinton's attacks beat those of Trump. Here, the choice will be made by voters. But she is trying to seem transparent and ready to solve the people's problems; she is promising them jobs and social services.

Trump seems like a critic without any concrete ideas here. All he does is make remarks that, while fair, are not pleasant to everyone; about how Clinton is a true politician and that we shouldn't hold our breath for her to fulfill her promises. But Trump's own proposals don't look very systemic. He touches on every problem, but Americans more than ever are looking for clarity on social and economic issues.

Clinton promises them many good things, helped in no small part by the capitulation of leftist Democrats, with Sanders at the head. They have allowed Clinton to arm herself with their slogans, naturally without a serious chance of them being fulfilled.

Trump would do well to remind voters that Republicans can create conditions for economic growth. It would have been good to remind people that the U.S. experienced economic growth during Dwight Eisenhower's term (1953-1961). This would not go against the Republican formula for a laissez-faire economic policy, but at the same time will let Americans remember: high economic growth also helps solve social problems. It is especially important because Trump only shakes his head at Clinton's generous promises: "She's not going to do it." But the voters aren't just concerned with how much Clinton is lying to them, but also with what Trump is going to do, and here they hear many common phrases. They also know that he doesn't like free healthcare, which they actually like quite a bit.

The efforts of the Federal Reserve help Americans to not feel the coming storm, which Trump has spoken of many times. But he should have said that all of the social welfare proposals of the Democrats won't make any sense without U.S. economic growth. Growth itself is not guaranteed, Trump has said that many times.

Now, it's also worth mentioning that the conditions for growth also need to be created. For that it is essential to not only subordinate the Federal Reserve to the government (lately it seems that it's the other way around), but also to raise interest rates. Of course, free higher education without any chances of good employment won't make much sense, but Americans want both that and opportunity.

Trump's Achilles' heel is not having a goal for creating a social welfare system in the U.S. in order to eliminate its horrible lagging behind in that area. Social welfare and guarantees are essential for Americans, at least if you take into account the possibility of new rapid economic growth. That has always come about as a result of development, which is what Trump promises. That has always been necessary for development.

But the Republicans haven't been inclined to admit this, much less develop a system of social benefits in the country. Trump doesn't understand that to counter Clinton's "socialism," you need only have a plan for economic growth and a set of social welfare packages that make Americans confident in a better future. As a result, the presidential race still looks like a race between unconvincing social promises by Clinton and Trump's protectionism.

Even if he wins the hearts of the electorate, it won't be because he is better versed in questions of foreign policy (here he often looks like a real bumpkin), but because he doesn't have a reputation as a liar; Clinton is the one with that reputation and this reputation is no accident. It has been earned as a result of serving the interests of the banks and by her constant flip-flopping and reversing positions.

Of course, it's not the issue of women that will determine the results of the U.S. elections. It could even be that they will be decided without taking the will of the electorate into account. But for now, Trump doesn't understand the most important thing in his country: you cannot ignore social problems. If you ignore social problems, then your opponent (however bad they may be) gets a powerful weapon, and words like "thanks a lot for doing a great job” and “she never gets anything done" might not be enough for victory. People need modern, non-profit healthcare and free education. They need guaranteed pensions, not to mention pensions in the first place. They don't need a "transparent pricing plan" of healthcare companies, the benefits of which Trump was touting earlier.

They are also not interested that Trump doesn't have a position on many other issues. As to the issue of harm from overly free foreign trade, that isn't obvious to everyone yet. That is why, however the press judges the effects of the invective from September and October, for now it is obvious that the Democrats have managed to focus Trump's attention on personal matters. He has been mired in a fight for the vote of social groups. At the same time, Clinton, despite her terrible reputation, lets Americans know that she hears them and will deal with social issues.

Trump, on the other hand, is only saying that he will not do that. We don't see his own vision, however conservative it could be. In that, not women, lies the fundamental weakness of the Republican candidate.