Even the debates were short on policy. Questions were not asked that delved into many issues that matter. No presidential debates discussed globalism vs. nationalism. We know Trump was a nationalist, as he was berated by the media throughout the presidential campaign for that, but she didn't make the point she was a globalist, and it only came out in hacked emails or private speeches that got secretly recorded.
To me, this has been one of my main complaints about the democratic party right now-- it doesn't argue the issues or make its case based on them. Convince people those positions are better in the short and long term. I would like it if leaders would say what they want to do and then try to do it. That, of course, doesn't happen often.
Beyond that, it wouldn't hurt to find possible candidates (maybe outside the political arena) with charisma, like Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, or Donald Trump. I would like to think it doesn't matter, have often voted for the least charismatic candidate based on the issues (did it in '16), but I suspect it's not that way for many.
As an added note, a recent poll indicated that Trump would lose to a generic Democrat in 2020 but beat Elizabeth Warren. I think that could be for two reasons. While she does have policy positions in the domestic area, they might be too far left for middle America. The other thing is- if it takes charisma, Warren doesn't have it. When she speaks publicly, she either sounds whiny or angry. She's an attractive woman, but beauty isn't charisma, as Trump and Bernie proved. I don't know if charisma is born into someone or whether it can be learned.
This next link was also interesting regarding whether being a woman hurt Hillary's chances. Two professors put together a play where they used the text from one of the debates. Clinton's words were given to a man and Trump's to a woman.
This discussions afterward, with a pretty liberal audience, surprised the creators. The viewers had liked his words when said by a woman and disliked hers when said by a man. New York Times also had a story on it but because I only get 10 a month (and have used up 3 already) I found another source. And no, I am not subscribing again until they take a more neutral stance on the news-- put out the facts when it's news and only tell us what to think in editorials.
Although the articles said they did not use the actual names, it was obvious from the title who it was about. From what I heard elsewhere, the intention had been that it would prove people voted against her because she was a woman. It proved the opposite. To that audience, his words were more acceptable when it was said by a woman than by Trump. The audience found the constant smiling obnoxious in a man but maybe had given it a pass when it was Clinton. Or maybe they didn't as I didn't like it in her either. I felt, however, that it probably wasn't so much acting superior as knowing that older women look better when they smile-- and appearances matter. Polls had her winning all those debates.