Most observers and three polls agree that Tuesday’s debate was a win for Kamala Harris and a loss for Donald Trump. Even many Trump supporters acknowledge their candidate’s performance was disappointing. It was time for him to make the sale, to land a knockout punch, and he didn’t.
Of course, neither candidate showed the breadth of vision and command of issues that Americans should expect of those seeking the presidency. The debate wasn’t so much a grand triumph for Harris as it was a gratuitous muddle by Trump. The CNN/SSRS poll found that only 4% of debate watchers said it changed their vote.
Nevertheless, Harris was able to achieve important political goals. She clung to the political center as best she could, given her past support of progressive policies. She managed to place a ray of daylight between herself and her boss, mostly by declaring, “I’m not Joe Biden.” She also looked and acted like somebody who could be president.
Ron Faucheux
More than Trump, Harris spoke with clarity and followed a game plan. She frequently pivoted away from difficult issues and took refuge in prepared sound bites. Ultimately, though, she was helped by Trump’s higgledy-piggledy attempts to tie his messages together.
Trump’s annoyance showed throughout. He seemed constantly irked by Harris, who pressed his hot buttons, such as saying that attendees leave his rallies early, bored and exhausted.
Inexplicably, Trump kept looking at the moderators and rarely looked into the camera. He was devoid of humor and didn’t deploy the light touches of wit that made Presidents John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan such able communicators.
Trump did get some messages across, but they were usually disconnected and jumbled. Jack Davis, a former newspaper editor and publisher who has watched politicians across the nation, summed it up best: “The man simply cannot think out loud or communicate the scramble of ideas in his head. He needs a grammar teacher to explain how antecedents work.”
Trump needed to tightly tie Harris to economic, immigration and national security policies of the Biden administration and contrast them against his own record. He tried here and there, but with mixed results. He should have clearly framed Harris as the status quo candidate and pushed her to the left of mainstream America. Again, he tried, and as usual, overstated his case —calling his opponent a “Marxist” without specific examples.
After the debate, Trump’s spin doctors laid the blame on ABC News. That’s no surprise. Supporters always make excuses for substandard performances, as Democrats did when Biden blew the June debate. Republican commentator Scott Jennings, a Trump supporter, made the point that it’s hard to blame the referees when your own player misses so many easy shots.
It’s true that the moderators fact-checked Trump on the spot several times. We can argue all day whether that should ever be done; I’d vote against doing so in a debate format with strict time limits. It’s really up to the candidates, though, to fact-check one another; that’s part of the argumentation process. If moderators go beyond enforcing the rules and play debate cop on substance, they should also press candidates to give direct answers and follow up when they don’t.
Harris and Trump both refused to answer key questions. She did so on the first question about the economy, and continued on the border, the Israel-Hamas war and late-term abortion. Trump wouldn’t say whether he’d veto a national abortion ban or whether he wants Ukraine to win the war against Russia.
Where does the campaign go from here?
Trump has said no to another debate. Now Harris can make hay out of his refusal, while avoiding the risks to her own candidacy of another encounter.
There is a vice-presidential debate coming up on Oct. 1, which will likely have little or no effect unless somebody blunders badly.
Advertising, on television, radio, social media and direct mail, will play a big role in swing states. It may be the only way for Trump’s campaign to deliver disciplined messages and the best way for Harris’ campaign to target her erratic policy stances to the most susceptible voters.
It’s now “go” time in this election. The “get ready” and “get set” phases are behind us.
Ron Faucheux is a nonpartisan political analyst, pollster and writer based in Louisiana. He publishes LunchtimePolitics.com, a nationwide newsletter on polls and public opinion.