This may be the only debate between America’s two Presidential candidates so it would behoove us to listen to it. It’s beginning in about three minutes so, if you’re watching, put your comments below.
The candidates have two minutes to answer the question, two minutes for a rebuttal by the other candidates, and then back to the questioned candidate for a one-minute rebuttal.
The debate is actually on all three major channels, but the moderators are from ABC. You can also watch the debate live, along with running commentary from NYT reporters, on the NYT liveblog page.
Oh, and I have pretty bad jet lag, so I’ll last until my eyes start closing. Instead of starting a new post tomorrow about the debate outcome, I’ll leave this post up for post-debate comments.
I’ll start things off by saying that Trump is just wrong in claiming that his proposed increases in tariffs on foreign goods will not result in higher costs of goods for the American taxpayer.
It makes me a little crazy that neither Harris or the moderators say something like, “Hey, Donnie, tariffs aren’t paid by the exporting country, and they those increased prices ARE passed along to American consumers.”
Yes, it would be such a simple thing to say, and is such a simple thing to understand. I couldn’t understand why someone didn’t say something!
I’m watching before lunch here in Tokyo. I think it’s going to give me indigestion, but luckily I still have a few hours before I have to try to sleep. I’m an Australian, resident in Japan for more than forty years, so I don’t get any say in the matter, but still …
I need to find out if these tariffs are only on Chinese products produced by Chinese companies, or also on U.S. companies’ products produced by cheap(er)Chinese labor.
Oy! Trump isn’t doing that well on the abortion issue, which is Harris’s Trump card, so to speak. He should not have said that the Dem. VP candidate said that newborns could be executed, as that’s just not true. As it says in the NYT live blog on the debate:
I will shut up now.
Mr. Trump may be confused about what a U.S. federal law of 2003 criminalizes as “partial-birth abortion”. It is illegal to deliver a live fetus by some sort of induction procedure and then kill it. The fetus, in states that permit abortion, must be dead before it is evacuated from the uterus unless otherwise necessary for some maternal indication. So the fact-check is accurate in that PBA can’t since 2003 be performed in any state. However, the states themselves did not all prohibit PBA, (hence the rationale for the federal law.) In this sense Mr. Trump might be correct in that, but for the federal law, some states would permit the killing of a live viable fetus after an abortion.
(FWIW in Canada which has no abortion criminal law, injuring a fetus in utero which is born alive and then dies would be murder or manslaughter depending on whether the assailant could be proved to have intended the death of the fetus, or not.)
I have no idea what Trump is talking about, but surely live births do sometimes, if rarely, occur in the US after late abortion, like they do in Europe? In Germany, the inofficial practice in late abortions, which are illegal here unless done “to protect the health of the mother” (often a euphemism for: child is malformed/handicapped), has long been the following: If the child is inadvertently born alive, it is put into a cool room and left alone naked until it dies by itself. This practice became widely known only when in one case in 1997, the child, who was aborted in the 6th month because of trisomy 21, was still alive after 12 hours and the staff then decided to treat it like they would any preemie. The boy was adopted, as the birth parents refused to take him, and had severe health problems in addition to the Down’s because of the induced premature birth.
I personally don’t really see a moral difference between killing a child in utero or outside of it, or between killing it actively or leaving it to die (but it must be emotionally different for the person who has to do it). There has to be a line somewhere, though, so this may be as good as any other.
The practice of killing or “shelving” newborns who had survived attempted abortions used to exist in the United States, but it’s been illegal for a little over 20 years. The former practice is described in this article: https://www.jpost.com/international/obama-is-no-moderate-his-radical-position-on-abortion-after-birth Maybe Trump was getting his information about this from a source that’s out of date.
(This article is from 2008, and unfortunately the paragraph breaks seem to have disappeared at some point in the time since then.)
Trump has completely melted down!
It is hard for me to watch him, as he is instantiating my theory that he has narcissistic personality disorder. On the other hand, Harris needs to start offering constructive policies rather than constantly attacking Trump.
I think very early on Harris got Trump off balance, and he’s been on the defensive since. Harris may sound vague, but Trump is outright hostile.
And Trump’s solution to almost every issue seems to come back to closing the U.S.-Mexican border.
Being unaware that Mexico is a large trading partner to the US.
I can’t get to a TV right now, but I am trying to follow the synopsis on CNN. No audio, though. It sure would be a good time for Harris to come out with specific goals and policies, since voters want that very badly right now. But I have not seen mention of any.
I’m not sure voters really do want policies. Perhaps some, sure. But not most. In my lifetime I can’t think of any presidential election race that was unambiguously won on policy statements.
A fairly recent example, Hillary Clinton talked about her policies every time she made an appearance, including during the debates with Trump, and constantly referred people to her campaign’s website for full details. And yet voters routinely accused her of not talking about her policies. Even many of the above average voters that were regular commentors here at WEIT. Even in discussions about said debates the day after the debates occurred.
I think these things are much more like a high school popularity contest than reasoned assessment of polices. And the politicians that play the game that way seem to be the ones that win more often than not.
“I think these things are much more like a high school popularity contest than reasoned assessment of polices.”
Makes you wonder then whether the original intent of the electoral college was correct, as in the decision as to who should be chief executive is too much to be left to a popular vote by the general populace.
If most people are too simple to assess policy and vote based on who looks or sounds cool, then we are going to continue to be stuck with glorified actors as our leaders.
The electoral college would only perform that function if delegates sometimes went against the votes of a majority (or at least a plurality) in their state. At the moment that doesn’t happen, so the only function the college serves is to exaggerate often marginal wins by voiding all minority votes. As we’ve seen twice so far this century, that sometimes means nationally losing candidates win, not because the electoral college exercised discretion, but precisely because it didn’t.
“The electoral college would only perform that function if delegates sometimes went against the votes of a majority (or at least a plurality) in their state.”
In the constitution, there was nothing that made the electors beholden to whatever the residents of the state wanted. State legislatures are responsible for choosing electors, but state legislatures used to simply appoint electors with no popular vote. But over time states gradually moved to an election to appoint the electors.
But this produces a strange process whereby we effectively have 50 different elections for a national leader, which produces goofy results like a candidate winning the national popular vote but losing the election. Either have a national election in which you just tot up all the votes of all the citizens, or go back to having appointed electors by the state legislators.
Jeff, yes indeed. It’s all part of the core structural problem of the US Constitution, which is the imbalance of power between state and federal governments, very much in favour of the former (unsurprisingly, since they were the pre-existing entities that had to be persuaded to voluntarily give up some of their powers to bring the federal government into existence). Despite the original 13 states’ historical primogeniture, it’s worth nothing that the other 37 states, which all post-date the birth of the federal government, have nevertheless inherited all the rights and privileges of the original 13.
The basic problem this produces is that the powers of the federal government are specifically enumerated, while those of the state governments have no predefined bounds. And thanks to the baleful 10th amendment, which simply twists the knife in the wound, this situation is a ratchet that only works in one direction, and thus will only get worse as the decades and centuries pass. One manifestation of the problem is in federal elections, which in any sensibly organized country would be conducted to uniform national standards and voting methods, overseen by the federal government itself. Instead, the election to the US Presidency is held hostage to the whims of fifty state governments, all with slightly different methodologies covering everything from voting machines to the allocation of electoral college votes. And all so that the states can interpose themselves between the people and the federal government by insuring that it is *they*, not the people, who elect the president. That is a recipe for corruption on a grand scale.
Harris: “You’re not running against Joe Biden, you’re running against me.” I think that might get some buzz when this is over. Anyway, CNN commentariat seems to think it’s going well for Harris.
It’ll be a Monty Python skit.
SNL for sure.
Or South Park.
Kamala’s wiping the floor with Donnie🤓
Clearly. He has been on the defensive the whole time, and although Harris has not been all that specific on policies (except for saying a two-state solution is imperative for Israel and Palestine, which is way premature), she has kept her cool. I am guessing that Harris will go up in the polls after this because, even though this debate was more about attacks and acrimony than policy, Harris came off as collected and unflappable (even if she did dodge some questions), while Trump simply looked unhinged.
While I disagree with Harris on almost everything, there’s no doubt she took this debate seriously and prepared rigorously.
I can’t imagine a more frustrating job in the world than being Trump’s debate coach.
Is it true that she was not fact checked at all? Is that because there was nothing that she said that was factually incorrect or a mischaracterization?
I did not watch the debate, but I am reading various right-based commentators who think Trump just messed up big.
I read through this:
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fact-checking-kamala-harris-donald-trumps-1st-presidential/story?id=113567997
and there are some fact checks of Harris. The one they said she was wrong about (that has stuck in my mind) was her claim that Trump would sign a national abortion ban. Apparently he has not said he would do that.
Which might actually work for her.
Harris: Trump would sign a national abortion ban
Fact check: there is no evidence he will
Rabid right wing Republicans: What? Why are we voting for this baby murder enabler?
I have to wonder why rabid anti-abortionists froth at the mouth about unborn kids but when it comes to their own children, grand-children and descendants yet to be conceived, they are willing to take a 97% losing bet that climate change is a ‘hoax’. And so they get into bed with the staunchest ‘anti-abortionist’ and yet, toss the whole future of the planet aside, not just for unborn babies, but for all kids, including those yet to be conceived.
Rational humans: What? Why are we voting for this planet killing enabler?
*Whew*!! The earlier news about the planning for this debate was that the Harris team wanted mics to be on while one of them was speaking- this to let Trump be unhinged more. I was worried that this was bc there was reason for concern about Harris, and they wanted the distraction from that (look at the crazy guy!). But I am glad to find that she was fine enough.
That comment by Trump of immigrants eating pets, cats and dogs was so damn bizarre. Babies put aside after they’re born so the doctor and parent can decide whether to kill them or not?
What a loon.
Harris did fine enough. At least she wasn’t crazy.
That’s what it’s come to here in the U.S., isn’t it? Vote for the non-crazy candidate!
🙂
That thing about the eating is/was a very recent big extreme right thing and Trump saw it and ate it up!
I think Harris won, hands down. She’s a very articulate debater with a large measure of rationality and empathy for the American people. Totally capable of being president. I’m confident she will win the election. Trump gave a strong and in many cases coherent delivery, but on most issues he lacked any contact with reality and came off as a whiner. He seemed steeped in the angry, turbulent past of his previous administration.
In normal times, Trump wouldn’t have a chance. A 78 year old one-termer who was impeached TWICE. Convicted felon…basically has more baggage than a fully loaded Airbus. Running against an incumbent administration. Has less campaign funds.
It shouldn’t even be close.
Agreed, it speaks volumes about the American electorate that it’s this close. I live in the heartland and can understand why it’s so close. This is purely anecdotal but I see in my local grocery store more and more migrants paying for their groceries with WIC or begging in the parking lot. I make it a game where I count the number of burqas and hijabs I see at the store, and they’re increasing. I really don’t have anything against immigrants, my Father was one, but I also don’t want to live in “Little Somalia” or “Little Venezuela.” Immigration is the sole issue Republicans could ever persuade me on. My eyes aren’t lying. I want to see immigration handled as rationally as possible and am placing my trust in the Harris ticket.
I guess this is why Trump talked about immigration so much in the debate! It’s about his only card.
Yeah, that and the economy, which is hard to pin on Biden.
I usually don’t bother to watch debates. We are not offered real debates. I made it through 45 minutes of BS from DT and KH. Donald puts out his usual spiel and avoids answering direct questions. I eagerly awaited his plan to rid the country of illegals. I’m still waiting.
Meanwhile, Harris was holding up fairly well, demonstrating once again that given proper handling even someone with a barely room temperature IQ can perform credibly. How well she or Trump would fare against, say a Jeffrey Sachs would be a totally different story.
There are two major issues that concern me. One is debt, and the other is war. National debt has gone exponential and increases by approximately a trillion dollars every hundred days. We are now at 36 trillion and might hit 37 trillion by the end of the year. If we add in state, corporate, and individual debt, we may be looking at 100 trillion dollars. Neither Trump nor Harris will deal with the debt catastrophe even if they wanted to. There are plenty of other economic problems but it is the weight of debt that will sink the country. That will probably occur in the latter half of 2025.
We might not make it to 2025. My other great fear stems from the reckless behavior of the USA toward Russia using Ukraine. This started in 2014 with the Maidan coup and subsequent civil war. Eventually, the refusal of Germany and France to enforce the Minsk Agreements led to the SMO. The current conflict has been marked by an outpouring of kindergarten propaganda by U.S.& NATO Intel supporting Ukraine. The proxy war has gone pretty much the way I expected. The Ukrainian forces are on the edge of destruction. In desperation, Biden, or more probably Blinken and Sullivan, have OKed the use of missiles that will have the range to strike deep into Russia. This is an act of war. The only positive is that Austin seems to be balking at this move.
Wow. Whether you agree or disagree with her, I think her IQ is way above room temperature.
Harris did wind up offering several specific policies. Her current trifecta is $6000 for new mothers, $50,000 for startup businesses, and $25,000 towards the down payment for first-time home buyers.
One can certainly argue that these are bad policies, as in “where does that money come from?,” but these are specific proposals designed to (cynically) get votes and/or (idealistically) help people.
On the other hand, I didn’t hear Trump outline any policies or proposals. He was given several chances, such as plans for deporting people. And his “it’s coming soon” healthcare plan was described by himself as “I have a concept.” Overall, Harris was much less vague than Trump tonight, I thought.
In a weird way, I thought Trump was less unhinged than usual, which shows how low the bar is for him.
“Harris did wind up offering several specific policies. Her current trifecta is $6000 for new mothers, $50,000 for startup businesses, and $25,000 towards the down payment for first-time home buyers.”
It might be worth noting that those are not policies as much as they are tactics for enacting policies. The policies they represent are Support for Parenthood; Support for Small Business; Support for Home Ownership.
I agree that tRump came across less unhinged than I hoped he would.
It’s as good as over – Tay Tay has endorsed Harris:
https://www.instagram.com/p/C_wtAOKOW1z/
😉
Let’s hope so!
From the various things he did say after she said the Jan 6 event that who was being prosecuted for the Seattle fires. I honestly don’t know how much of the city was taken and how much burned down or who was arrested but in all fairness that was about all I might agree with on him.
That riot was no less pathetic to an outsider like me.
https://www.kuow.org/stories/who-faces-criminal-charges-related-to-seattle-area-protests-here-s-a-roundup
Fair enough. The arson ones?
There are a number of cases if you bother to check. For example
https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdwa/pr/tacoma-woman-sentenced-5-years-prison-arson-downtown-seattle-protest
Part of the problem might be that the extent of fires in Seattle has been exaggerated, and it is sometimes difficult to distinguish protest fires from simple arson.
I’m not surprised. I’m a Kiwi and not an American and don’t exactly follow these things with relish.
Thanks mate!
I didn’t watch the debate, but I checked sources about what the candidates have said about the war in Ukraine. Harris expressed support, which is not enough, because Biden also expresses support while taking care the support to be enough just to allow Ukraine to partly survive till tomorrow, but it is better than nothing. Trump, when asked, declined to say that Ukrainian victory is in US interests. Instead, he said that ending the war is in US interests. Supposedly ending it at Putin’s terms. If i could vote in the USA, Harris would have my vote.
Coming here late (the morning after) but a couple things stood out. One was body language, she alternated between addressing the camera and addressing Trump directly, looking at him directly while she challenged him (prosecuting him?). He never looked in her direction (or I missed it). Instead he just scowled in the general direction of the camera. She was basically on top of the facts, while he resorted to yelling about “eating the dogs”. After the debate he ended up in the media spin room to “spin” one his own behalf – a task normally left to surrogates and hardly a sign of confidence. I think even trump realized he was taken to the woodshed.
Agree with the policy comments above – but Harris does now have her policies online now, so they are available. After however many years he still doesn’t have anything on, for example, healthcare. He has “concepts”. I guess he has project 2025. There is a double standard where we demand normality of one candidate but not the other.
Overall probably the best I’ve seen from Harris.
NYT editor Jessica Bennett stated that Harris “did not interrupt.” That is not true. By my count Harris interrupted twice. In response to one interruption, Trump said to her (or words to the effect), “I’m speaking. Does that sound familiar?” (I guess she just couldn’t help herself, or momentarily thought she was in a senate committee hearing interrupting an underling testifying.)
I don’t recall seeing/hearing Trump interrupt Harris. ABC made it a point to have a camera on Harris showing her various reactions (incredulous head-shaking, chuckling, etc.) when Trump spoke. So far as the cameras revealed, I did not see Trump, scowling or not, similarly stare at her when she responded. I trust that Trump was not neglecting or disrespecting her by not similarly staring at her.
Harris stared at Trump way too much when answering correspondents’ questions. She should have been looking directly at the camera at voters.
Of course Trump played loose with facts and neither was much specific on policy.
No correspondent uttered a question about “eastward expansion of NATO” (a verboten phrase in the MSM) and other countries’ legitimate security concerns and sovereignty (as related to U.S. sanctions and seizures and “long-arm” jurisdiction). No question about U.S. citizens who, in exercising their 1st amendment rights, publicly disagree with U.S. foreign policy, as a result tailed by federal air marshals, their passports seized after having already boarded a flight, and homes raided and property taken by federal law enforcement agencies.
As it is with KenS’s “That’s what it’s come to here in the U.S., isn’t it? Vote for the non-crazy candidate!”, so it is with a Taylor Swift endorsement.
I watched yesterday. Harris mopped the floor with Trump.
Kamala did well. There was very little of the empty phrases and cackling that have made her the subject of ridicule. She showed a command of the issues and did not back down from Trump. In contrast, Trump often looked and sounded deranged. Also, at 78, I’m not sure why age isn’t as big a concern about him as it was about Biden. Yes, Trump seems more energetic at his age, but he doesn’t seem particularly lucid.
I do think that the moderators often seemed to act on behalf of Kamala, although I’m not sure whether that was because of the leftist bias of the network (which is evident) or because Trump consistently refused to answer the questions that were put to him. Kamala could have been pressed more by the moderators on her flip flopping, and what if any accomplishments she’s had in the last 3+ years as VP. But Trump should have been much more aggressive in that vein, instead of getting agitated over the size of his crowds, making weird claims about pet-eating immigrants, or lobbing cheapshots against Biden.
Overall, this debate allayed many concerns about Kamala that people may have had, and may have gained her some independents. For Trump, no one other than his most rabid base would have liked his performance.
At this point, what the Republican party ought to be doing is pressuring Trump to step down as their candidate, so they can replace him with someone more competent. The Democrats would find it very hard to object to that, as it’s what they did with their own candidate in July.