My Takeaways from the Harris-Trump Debate
During the first debate between President Biden and former President Donald Trump, I wrote that two things emerged: Trump refused to answer the moderator’s questions and instead answered with half-truths, one-third truths, one quarter truths and no truths. He was literally a human lying machine. But Biden appeared so frail and at times incoherent that there were calls for him to be replaced as the Democratic candidate for president.
So when I tuned in to watch debate # 2 on ABC, as I did when I tuned in to watch the above mentioned CNN debate, I watched it as a former political operative, who worked on campaigns ranging from assemblymen to presidential ones, not as an advocate for a candidate.
Here are my pre-debate # 2 observations
The sparring between the vice-president and the former president prior to the debate on Sept. 10 can be compared to prize fighters talking trash to promote an upcoming fight.
Mr. Trump said he had no obligation to do the debate because he agreed to debate President Biden, not Ms. Harris.
Then he said he would.
Then Ms. Harris wanted to debate with open mics.
Mr. Trump said that was not the agreement he had with ABC.
Mr. Trump’s seconds said that he would not debate with open mics.
Mr. Trump overruled them, saying it didn’t matter to him if the mics were open or closed as the opponents spoke.
Finally they both agreed to debate with closed mics.
Below Are The Challenges Both Faced Before The Debate
Donald Trump: Mr. Trump’s challenge was to maintain his composure, as he did while debating President Biden, and repeat the talking points he used in the first debate – that during his administration inflation was low, he kept the U.S. out of war and that there were no wars in Ukraine and Gaza, hoping that those talking points would be sufficient to convince viewers to vote for him.
He had some easy targets: Ms. Harris’ far-left policies when elected to political positions in California before becoming Vice President, and that she would revert to those positions if elected, her flip flopping on fracking, and that she played a major role in President Biden’s administration, especially in his unpopular immigration policy.
Kamala Harris: Ms. Harris had a more difficult task. She still had to introduce herself to much of the public that does not follow politics, convincing them that she is not Biden 2, without throwing the president under the bus, convincing viewers how her new policy initiatives would benefit them and convincing the audience that she is a better choice than Mr. Trump.
She had some easy targets: Reminding the public that Trump was responsible for the Jan. 6 riots during the presidential transfer of power from Trump to Biden, that Trump is a convicted felon who faces three additional trials, that he attempted to scuttle the Affordable Care Act and that his tax legislation while president helped millionaires, while doing little for the middle class population.
Similar Problems: Both Harris and Trump have been accused by the media of not answering reporter’s questions. Harris has been campaigning on what I call a “broad stroke” agenda, providing little details of her policies while avoiding the media. Trump says that he frequently takes media questions, which is true, but he rarely answers them and, instead, segues into his talking points routine.
Personally, I think Harris’ “broad stroke” campaigning helps a candidate more than one who provides specifics, because the less specifics about a policy, the more difficult it is to criticize it. And “broad strokes” campaigning has been successful for generations. Famously, it was used successfully by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the only president to be elected more than twice, when he campaigned under the umbrella theme of the New Deal and Mr. Trump, who is still campaigning under the theme Make America Great Again.
The Predebate Excuses: In case they performed badly, both candidates voiced reasons why the debate rules were unfair to them. Ms. Harris said that the closed mics would hamper her style. Mr. Trump said ABC is the worst and most dishonest network. He even said that they would provide the questions in advance to Ms. Harris.
Before I opine on who won the debate, my opinion is that Ms. Harris is in deep trouble. I feel that way because she hasn’t moved the needle since the Democratic Convention and is running neck and neck with Mr. 46 percent, despite Trump being a convicted felon, who has never won the popular vote. In order for her to keep or expand her minuscule lead, which at this writing on September 10 is declining, she has to find a message that will convince voters that she will make a better president than Mr. Trump. Thus far, she hasn’t found how to do that and her slight lead is because many voters are anti.—.Trump, not pro Harris, not a good winning blueprint. As you know, it’s the Electoral College votes that decide winners, and unless Ms. Harris can expand her slight polling advantage in the swing states, the “silent majority” (a phrase coined by President Richard Nixon) will come out on Election Day and propel Trump to victory. Even if she wins this debate she has a difficult road to 270 electoral votes because the former president is starting with a solid 46 percent voting bloc. Ms. Harris’ voting bloc is not solid, according to polls. Thus far, her most important allies have been Trump’s and Vance’s mouths. It’s my opinion that Ms. Harris made a major mistake by choosing Governor Walz as a running mate, instead of choosing a governor from a battleground state. I plan to write on that in a future column.
Here are my opinions on how the moderators and debaters
The announcers:.
David Muir: Did a poor job. Despite both Ms. Harris and Mr. Trump not answering his questions, he let them seque into their talking points without saying, “You’re not answering my question.”
Linsey Davis: Same as above.
In its September 10 edition, the New York Times reported that Mr. Muir and Ms. Davis are “generalists,” not political reporters. That’s true, but it really doesn’t matter, because most of the questions they asked could be anticipated by anyone who follows political news and, in this case, were probably crafted by ABC’s political reporters. The Achilles' heel of these debates, in my opinion, is that instead of insisting that a participant answer a question, the hosts just move on to the next question, as if they were reading from a script, which, of course, they are. Also, the lack of on the spot corrections to misinformation given by a participant is a disservice to viewers who do not normally follow political news. In this debate it only happened twice. In most cases, the so-called winner, anointed by pundits, gets a small momentary bump from presidential debates, which shortly fades away. But not always. President Biden’s poor performance during his debate with former president Donald Trump caused Mr. Biden to not seek reelection, even though Mr. Trump lied continuously. That’s why I feel that by not correcting misstatements immediately after one is made promotes the dissemination of falsehoods at the expense of honesty. To use a Donald Trump phrase, the presidential debates offer a platform for “fake news.”
The contestants.
Harris: Her statements were clear and concise and included her plans, if elected. Her attacks on the former president obviously got under his skin.
Trump: Appeared unprepared and resorted to his usual name calling attacks on political opponents. He obviously was ruffled by Ms. Harris’ attacks on him and his responses included numerous lies instead of providing factual answers to rebut her assertions. Importantly, unlike his demeanor during his debate with President Biden, Mr. Trump could not control his composure when Ms. Harris attacked him.
My Conclusions
I think Ms. Harris was the clear winner of the debate. Throughout the debate she appeared confident of what she was saying. Mr. Trump during most of the debate appeared flustered and obnoxious.
My first debate column included three predictions. Was I correct?
During my first debate analysis I wrote, “But perhaps the most important aspect of the debate had nothing to do with the words spoken by the candidates. It was their demeanor. Would the president appear tired and weak, or would his performance convince viewers that he has the mental capacity and stamina that a president should have. Would the former president remain calm and focused or would he fly off the handle, reminding viewers of the four years of turmoil during his presidency. That prognosis was correct. Biden's wobbly performance led to calls for him to step aside and Trump received high marks for keeping calm, despite his lies when answering questions.
I also wrote that the winner of the debate will not know for some time if their debate strategies helped move their needles permanently, because debaters usually get a short-lived bump if they do well. Was I right about that? A poll taken after the debate by 538 and Ispos showed Trump’s support “barely budged, perhaps a reflection of the fact that, while Biden performed poorly voters weren’t especially impressed with Trump’s performance either. The share of likely voters who said they were considering voting for Trump after the debate climbed from 43.5 percent to just 43.9 percent. “But the bump evaporated and Ms. Harris entered the debate slightly ahead of the former president, according to polls.
I also said that Trump’s consistent lying during the first debate might not go well with viewers. Certainly the after the debate criticism of the former president for his machine gun like lying didn’t help him. Even articles that said he won the debate highlighted his lying and viewers told journalists that they were turned off by Trump’s lies
In the sub head of this essay, I wrote “Both Had To Do Better Than Joe Biden. Did They?” Ms. Harris did – by a wide margin. Mr. Trump fell short – also by a wide margin.
