In Tuesday's first -- and possibly only -- presidential debate between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris, the 45th president squandered numerous opportunities to press a compelling case against his opponent. She was plainly well-prepared; he seemed to have prepared very little -- a self-inflicted disadvantage that was especially problematic for him because at times he seemed to be debating three people in that hall, including both moderators. They absolutely stacked the deck against him with the questions and topics. They followed-up multiple times with him, but did not do the same when she dodged the few passably pointed questions that were directed at her. On issue after issue after issue after issue after issue, she pivoted away from the questions she was asked without answering them. The hosts fact-checked Trump in real time on several occasions, but did not do so with Harris, even when she was flat-out denying realities about her record. Just a few examples I caught along the way:
She’s shaking her head as he mentions her Minnesota bail fund action, which is a fact. Her tweet is still live.
— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) September 11, 2024
Fact check: Harris repeatedly promised to ban fracking, she co-sponsored a bill to outlaw private health insurance, and she endorsed a “mandatory buyback” on guns. If she ‘no longer believes’ those things, she hasn’t explained why. At all.
— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) September 11, 2024
Any ABC follow up on any of that?
There were more. They did not follow up on any of it, so we still have zero explanations about her many policy gyrations and abandonments of long-stated stances. ABC barely tried to pull those sorts of answers out of her (at one point she said she would address several of the issues mentioned, then never did, without follow-up), and Trump rarely capitalized on seemingly countless opportunities to push on these fronts. His first answer on the economy got bogged down on tariffs, right after Harris had just inartfully dodged the fundamental, threshold "are you better off?" question, moments prior. He had a glaring, powerful opportunity to highlight her evasion and make the inescapable point about why she wouldn't answer it. And he let her off the hook. Rather than drawing attention to her dodge and hammering on the basis for that question, he meandered into retread answers, generalities and hyperbole. He waited until the closing statements, at the very end, to land the obvious attack against her many promises and supposed plans, asking why she and Biden haven't used the power they currently have to make people's lives better -- rather than amassing the failed record that she has.
Harris noticeably ducked questions like the crucial "better off" inquiry at the start, on whether she'd have done anything differently at the border, if she'd support any limitation at all on abortion, and if she bears any responsibility whatsoever on the Afghanistan debacle. Sure, ABC's anchors often appeared to be acting as Harris' accomplices, but Trump also had agency -- and lots of material -- to blow up premises, draw attention to her refusals to answer, and to factually counter-attack. He effectively took advantage of precious few of those opportunities. The Democratic convention was premised on the ludicrous idea that Harris is the challenger, and that Trump is the incumbent. Harris and ABC worked to make this debate a referendum on Trump, and Trump didn't do enough to refocus the spotlight on Harris, her Biden-Harris record, and her many extreme views.
At times, I could imagine any number of Republicans shouting at their screens from their couches at some, almost begging to be tagged in to respond to what she and the moderators were serving up. Trump sporadically did so, but too often wandered down useless or counter-productive cul-de-sacs. She baited him, successfully, on several topics. He ended up spending quite a bit of time reminding potentially winnable voters why they'd grown so weary of him in 2020. By contrast, she passed the plausibility test. Net-net, that's a good night for her. My top-line thoughts, as shared on social media last night (forgive a few repeated points), including my overall verdict:
- ABC was flagrantly biased. The questions, the topics, the selective follow-ups, the selective fact-checks.
- Harris was very prepped, including to sidestep Q’s she didn’t want to answer. She avoided nearly everything she wanted to avoid. She anticipated Q’s and had counter-attacks ready. She evaded nearly all scrutiny of her record & mostly slipped the moniker of incumbent, even though she is the incumbent.
- Trump was poorly prepared and unfocused, left many points on the field, and missed numerous opportunities to press a case against her (which ABC was clearly not clamoring to highlight). He took a lot of bait. He got a few good shots and points in, but whiffed on a lot of chances. There were powerful responses to the Q’s and Harris attacks, but he was inconsistent, at best, in availing himself of those responses. He saved his strongest, fundamental attack on the Biden-Harris record until the very, very end.
- She basically accomplished exactly what she wanted to here. I suspect the polls about the debate will show that she won it.
- What does that mean over the next few weeks, in terms of the electoral polls? I don’t know. Maybe little. [We live in a] polarized country, [in which there is] a lot of dissatisfaction with the status quo.
Recent polling has shown that Kamala Harris' propaganda-driven hype and euphoria was wearing off, once again giving way to a very close and competiitve race. Some important surveys have indicated Trump may have moved back into (very narrow) frontrunner status -- which has also been reflected in Nate Silver's much-watched and -discussed model. Whether Harris' debate win -- and I do think most viewers will see it as a win for her, and that there were a lot of viewers -- ultimately or lastingly moves the needle on the race itself remains to be seen. Given how closely divided we are as a country, there are only a relative handful of voters to be persuaded. We move on from a lot of things very quickly these days, including near-assassinations. If Trump winds up losing this election, the two debates we've witnessed will likely look decisive, in retrospect. The first was so disastrous for Biden that it tossed Democrats a lifeline by forcing their losing nominee out of the race. The second laid bare the difference between a prepared candidate (also benefiting from profound moderator bias) and an unprepared one, on a crucial stage. If Trump wins, we can attribute a lot of his success to realities like this, rather than his own debate performance:
What's funny is this lady made a better pitch for Trump than Trump did. https://t.co/rclk4GjvCG
— Zaid Jilani (@ZaidJilani) September 11, 2024
Indeed, if Trump prevails, which he very well might, it will be because Harris and her legions of media cheerleaders simply can't overcome certain enormous facts on the ground that American voters have experienced and internalized for the last few years -- no matter what they're told, or how arguments are packaged. On that score, I'll leave you with this:
CNN’s snap poll of debate viewers gives Harris the win by a wide margin (~25 points), but on the top election issue, Trump actually gains some ground among this group: https://t.co/ZRZFxCmdaM
— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) September 11, 2024
Join the conversation as a VIP Member