As you know, there’s a Big Debate tonight between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. It’ll be broadcast on television on ABC, a non-cable channel. ABC says this: (note that times are Eastern times):
The ABC News debate, moderated by David Muir and Linsey Davis, will take place on Tuesday, Sept. 10 at 9 p.m ET. A prime-time pre-debate special will air at 8 p.m. ET. It will air on ABC and stream on ABC News Live, Disney+ and Hulu. Viewers can also stream the debate on the ABC app on a smartphone or tablet, on ABC.com and connected devices.
The debate will last an hour and a half. I may do a live post with readers reacting in real time, but I will refrain from giving any of my own take until the next day.
If you’re a PBS fan, there’s a bunch of broadcasting on PBS starting at 6 pm EDT with the PBS News Hour, and continuing through the debate (with, undoubtedly, some post-debate analysis).
A few comments and some related articles.
Although Harris has been notably silent about specific policy issues until now, and has sat for only one (softball interview), I now see that there’s a menu of policy positions on her website, which you can see here. You’d better believe that the Trump campaign will be scanning them for what they see as weak spots. There are, of course, a gazillion ways Trump himselfcan be attacked, though, like Harris, he seems to have moderated some of his more extreme stands (e.g., on abortion) in a pragmatic bid for victory.
I’m not convinced that either candidate will tell the truth about what they really plan to do, as both now seem to be acting pragmatically: they both want to win, and both will say what they think will get them elected. Such is politics: you can’t govern unless you win. That said, I think Harris is absolutely serious in wanting to pass a law that reinstates the provisions of Roe v Wade nationwide, and I support her on that. But unless both houses of Congress turn Democratic, she stands no chance. As for Trump, I have no idea what he’s absolutely serious about, which scares me.
But I don’t think that Trump will have the self-control that will gain him a victory in the debate. Still, a victory in the debate may not, unlike the fatal Trump/Biden debate, have much to do with how people vote come November.
What will happen tonight? All I can predict with confidence is that it’s going to get nasty despite both candidates having moderated their tone and made noises about sticking to the issues. I don’t think Trump can control himself, and to the extent that Harris keeps her cool, she’ll come off looking better. But I hasten to add that Trump has always seemed impervious to how he “comes off,” and the support he’s enjoyed despite all the civil and criminal trials in his future support his statement that “”I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK?. . . . It’s, like, incredible.”
As Tom Friedman notes in the NYT op-ed below (click headline to read, or find the article archived here). Harris has taken some positions in the past that could come back to haunt her should Trump bring them up in the debate. These include immigration and Title IX issues. As the Free Press reports in its daily news summary.
Even as Harris gets a little more specific in 2024, the promises she made in 2019 remain a headache. The latest unwelcome reminder of the progressive positions she took in the Democratic primary five years ago come courtesy of CNN’s Andrew Kaczynski, who reports that during that race Harris told the ACLU she supports cutting ICE’s funding and providing gender transition surgery to detained migrants.
Further, she’s susceptible to her statement that her values haven’t changed but some of her positions have (e.g., fracking). If I were a moderator, I’d ask her to explain that. She’s also not good when thinking on her feet, and, with the pressure of a deranged opponent coming down on her, she has to try hard to keep her cool.
I am not a fan of Friedman so much, but I think he’s pretty much correct in his article below:
An excerpt:
“Joe and I got a lot of things right, but we got some things wrong, too — and here is what I have learned.”
For my money, uttering those 23 words, or something like them, is the key for Kamala Harris to win Tuesday’s debate against Donald Trump — and the election.
Utter them, and she will hugely improve her chances to win more of the undecided voters in this tight race. Fail to utter them or continue to disguise her policy shifts with the incoherent statement she used in the CNN interview — that while her positions might have changed on fracking and immigration, “my values have not changed” — and she will struggle.
Madam V.P., if you say your positions have changed but your values haven’t, what does that even mean? And what should we expect from your presidency — your values or your actions? Our latest poll shows too many voters still don’t know.
It’s OK to say: “I learned a lot as vice president. I’m proud of our record of putting America on a sustainable path to a clean energy future. It will make us more secure and more prosperous. But I also see that we can’t get there overnight. For reasons of both economic security and national security, we need an all-of-the-above energy strategy right now. So you can trust that in a Harris presidency, America will continue to lead the world in exploiting our oil and gas advantages but we will do it in the cleanest way possible while making the transition as fast as possible.”
I’m not so sure that admitting she was wrong will “hugely improve her chances” to win over undecided voters, but if she doesn’t she’ll be in a tight place.
Will admitting she was wrong hurt her? Not to me, but perhaps to the American public, which may interpret it as a weak candidate flip-flopping on the issues. Here’s one of the issues—from CNN—that she might want to back off on, especially given the fact that illegal immigration is now an important issue to many Americans (as is, to a lesser extent, “affirmative care”).
Click to read Kaczynski’s article mentioned above:
An excerpt from CNN:
As Kamala Harris pivots to the political center in her campaign for president, a 2019 questionnaire from a leading civil rights organization spotlights her past support for left-wing causes such as taxpayer-funded gender transition surgeries for detained immigrants and federal prisoners.
In an American Civil Liberties Union questionnaire then-Sen. Harris filled out as a candidate for president in 2020, she also expressed support for decriminalizing federal drug possession for personal use, and for sweeping reductions to Immigration and Custom Enforcement operations, including drastic cuts in ICE funding and an open-ended pledge to “end” immigration detention.
The questionnaire has received scant media attention and a spokesperson for the ACLU claimed it had remained live from 2019.
But the ACLU’s website upload and page source indicate the questionnaire was reposted last month after Harris became the presumptive Democratic nominee. CNN was unable to find questionnaires filled out by other candidates from the 2020 campaign that the ACLU had reposted.
Harris has acknowledged that some of her stances have evolved over time but that she holds core beliefs that remain unshakable: “My values have not changed,” she said in an interview with CNN last month.
The ACLU questionnaire, which was sent to all Democratic and Republican candidates during the 2020 presidential campaign, provides a clear record of Harris’ progressive stances. Some candidates did not respond to the questionnaire, including Joe Biden. The ACLU later ran radio ads attacking Biden for not answering.
The ACLU also had volunteers question candidates at public town halls and later posted videos on their website of their responses.
During one town hall event in New Hampshire in April 2019, Harris was asked by a voter if she supports adding a “third gender” to federal identification cards.
“Sure,” Harris answered to a round of applause from the crowd. “I have my entire life and career been an ally and I see the issue of LGBTQ rights as a fundamental civil rights and human rights issue, period,” Harris said.
Here’s a graphic of that, again from CNN:
I have to say that her stand on this: giving federal funding for gender surgery for immigrants who entered the country illegally, is absurd. And slashing ICE funding is not something most Americans want. She’d better be ready to disavow these positions, because if Team Trump has any smarts, they’ll bring them up.
Perhaps most Americans will be watching the debate as a form of entertainment rather than a way to figure out how to vote. It’s not at all clear that there will be more debates, though, so this may be the only chance to see the candidates go mano a mano. All we know is the country is poised to go down two very divergent paths, and I find debate about that to be more anxiety-inducing than entertaining.
Anyway, these are just random thoughts, but I invite your random thoughts or predictions about the debate. I’m sure people will have more to say tomorrow.
I’m ready to see what can be, unburdened by what has been.
Вперёд! (Vperyod, “forward”)
“Un-Bidened by has-been.”
Well, that would help, providing she can recognize their mistakes and that people believe she intends to change.
I teach a night class fall semester so by the time I get home it will be over. I’m one of those folks who doesn’t understand how anyone could vote for an adjudicated rapist felon who lies constantly etc etc. It seems a lifetime ago since Romney was running and we had a Republican candidate with serious ideas about governance. I don’t usually care for Friedman’s work but I will give him a read on this one.
More of a burlesque than debate. I just don’t think my mental health can stand it. I shall either be reading a michael oren history of U.S. – Middle East relationships which I have just started or, if my eyes are tired by 9:00, I will tune in a 1960’s Perry Mason rerun on cable. Really, what could I learn that might change my vote?
I think that some people are wavering and the debates are aimed at the undecided.
I might put in earplugs when the Orange Moron is speaking🤢
I thought the host asked us to refrain, in the name of civility, from puerile playground insult-nicknames for political candidates. Republicans can take it but the ones for Ms Harris really lit some fuses here.
Calling names is one thing – hatecraft is another thing entirely.
FYI – the “hatecraft” point was in no way a dig at anyone here – it was pointing out – as in, out there – to a part of political warfare.
She tested the (stupid) “My values haven’t changed” dodge. Let’s see if she uses it again. If so, she didn’t learn from her earlier mistake in using that phrase.
I’m planning to watch tonight—and probably cringe.
I won’t be able to watch this, but I suspect Harris is like Australia’s Kevin Rudd, she does not have policies, she has opinion polls.
I would like to see Harris challenged on the proposal by some in her party to pack the Supreme Court. That would trigger a tit-for-tat response from the Republicans as soon as they are back in power that would be terrible for the country.
I assume you mean add more justices to the Supreme Court. Biden didn’t do it, why should she? Rather she should push for enforceable ethical guidelines. That would get rid of a few right wing justices.
I’ve seen it in several places, including the WSJ opinion page. A quick Google gives this article with names of at least two Democratic congresspeople advocating it: https://thedispatch.com/newsletter/dispatch-politics/democrats-still-hope-to-remake-the-supreme-court-in-2025/
Ethical guidelines would be great, but balancing the separation of powers while enforcing them would be tricky.
Kamala will remind us that school buses are yellow, that deadlines have to do with time, and that things of the past can be unburdened by the present, and the light of tomorrow.
Trump will talk about how he is the greatest ever president, no one ever did president like him.
It will be basically be an all out assault on the English language. There will be torrents of empty platitudes, mind-numbing non-sequiturs, and generous helpings of word salad. And we will all wonder how these two intellectual powerhouses are the best we have to offer.
Two bad candidates—that’s my opinion (of I’m Canadian so it hardly matters what I think).
It’s unbelievable that in a country which does not have universal healthcare Harris would think that paying for gender transition surgery for illegal immigrants would be a winning campaign plank.
The only VP Harris policy that matters is the “I am not Trump” policy.
Leftism – the cult of hatecraft.
It’ll probably end up like a Monty Python skit.
The press still has not learned how to handle Trump’s random statements. His statement that the government or insurance companies should pay for IVF treatments is pure bovine scat, but the press and GOP treat it like a major policy statement to be taken seriously. For tonight’s debate, I would favor having the debater who is not speaking at the moment being unaware if their microphone is on or off. Let them guess and behave accordingly.
Apparently here in B.C. one cycle of IVF will be government funded starting next year.
Either candidate could stand in the middle of 5th avenue and not lose any votes. Biden was obviously severely limited in his capacity, and yet the Democrats still stood behind him until suddenly they weren’t. Harris was unpopular even among Democrats, and now we must vote for her or it’s the end of democracy, and we dare not criticize The Party In Power (as a relatively old-timer, all I can say is how much we’ve changed!). Trump supporters are obviously rabid as well, but I don’t see any difference between either candidates supporters when it comes to anything their chosen candidate does and their minds being changed. I do see some open discussion of concerns with candidates’ positions within this and some other sites though, and for that I’m thankful.
I lasted 11 minutes and obviously am now doing other things.