There were at least two op-eds in the New York Times in the last few days arguing that if Harris was to win last night’s debate, she could not spend her time attacking Trump but had to show that she had tangible policy proposals for the American people. Well, Harris did win the debate (I’m not aware of anybody who disagrees with this, including conservative websites like the National Review), but it was not because of her policy proposals. (Fortunately, I managed to stay awake to watch the whole thing.)
The NYT was wrong: Harris won the debate hands down, not by presenting tangible policies (she did mention a few), but by doing what she was told not to do: baiting and attacking Trump. She did it calmly but persistently, to the point where Trump became so baffled and enraged that he simply lost it, becoming unhinged and yes, almost deranged. And when that happened, his narcissism and lying became uncontrollable. In fact, at some points I thought that, like Biden, he had simply lost his ability to think. It seems to me now that Trump is showing signs of age, in a manner different in degree but not in kind from the kind of fogginess that brought down Biden in his last debate with Trump.
If you didn’t see the debate, it’s below.
I suspect that some of Harris’s debate practice involved confecting statements that would unsettle Trump, and, sure enough, they worked, like a red cape shown to a bull. Perhaps the most effective was Harris’s assertion that people got bored at Trump rallies, which were insubstantial and full of pop culture, and simply left them early.
That was enough to unsettle Trump, who claims that his rallies were, like everything else he does, the greatest in the history of America. And he never recovered his equilibrium. The lies and misstatements spouted forth like water from a fountain. There was the statement that Haitians were eating pets in Ohio, the claim that Harris met both Putin and Zelensky and failed to secure a peace (she never met Putin), the false claim that tariffs on foreign goods wouldn’t result in higher prices for consumers, that if was elected he could settle the Ukraine/Russia war before he took office, that Harris was a Marxist, that some Democrats support the execution of children after birth, and so on. None of that is true. When Harris said that world leaders were laughing at Trump’s ineptitude (another statement guaranteed to bait him), his response was to quote Hungarian President Viktor Orbán, a minor figure who admires Trump but also admires Putin. Was that the best he could do?
The WaPo and other sites have compiled a list of Trump’s lies and exaggerations, and it’s long. Now Harris wasn’t immune to misstatements, either, but they were far fewer, and included her statement that “And as of today, there is not one member of the United States military who is in active duty in a combat zone, in any war zone around the world, the first time this century,”, which isn’t true. She claimed that the Biden administration created over 800,000 manufacturing jobs (the true number is close to 625,00). But these are trivial compared to Trump’s fulminating and arrant lying.
I don’t know how many undecided voters would have been swayed by Trump’s performance to vote for him, but I doubt that it’s anywhere close to half. The debate was really a contrast in likability and personality, and Harris’s cool demeanor and failure to get flustered made her look far better than Trump, whom I’ve always said suffers from a form of personality disorder. And voters want to like the person whose box they check on the Presidential ballot.
Both candidates evaded some questions, including Trump’s denial of any responsibility for Project 2025, his failure to own up to the “fine people on both sides” statements he said after the far-right rally in Charlottesville, and his failure to specify how he’d rid the country of 11 million illegal immigrants. For her part, Harris didn’t really explain how her policies could change if her values didn’t, and she didn’t own up to her change of policy on fracking nor admit the seriousness of the immigration issue. This was balanced by two statements by Harris that were eloquent and, at least to me, somewhat moving: her defense of abortion rights for women and her rebuke of Trump for failing to stand for America’s democratic values by not supporting Ukraine.
No, Harris wasn’t strong on presenting policies (she did outline some, like her $6,000 tax credit to parents with newborns and a reduction in tax credits, and her website now outlines specific plans, including giving $25,000 to first-time home buyers). Whether her plans are financially viable is another question, but neither she nor Trump were asked that. (Note that, according to the New Republic, many of Harris’s policies were lifted directly from Biden’s campaign website).
The one issue on which I strongly disagree with Harris is the stand on Israel she espoused. While she said she strongly supported Israel and its right to defend itself, she also argued that the death toll of civilians in Gaza (something that’s been lifted from Hamas’s figures) is too high, and that we need both an immediate cease-fire and especially a two-state solution. Both of those policies explicitly deny Israel the right to defend itself: a cease-fire now is a loss for Israel and a victory for Hamas, and we simply cannot have a two-state solution now. There are not honest brokers on either side, and of course neither Israel nor the Palestinians really want a two-state “solution”, which won’t solve any problems. (Israel now has no faith that a Palestinian state will be peaceful, and the Palestinians want the erasure of the state of Israel far more than they want their own state alongside Israel.) I have little faith that Harris will conduct an israeli policy to my liking, but of course many Americans are far less pro-Israel than I.
As for the moderators, they were pretty good, though David Muir dominated the questions over Linsey Davis, which seems to me a bit sexist. However, the questions were generally good, and I thought the policy of fact-checking false claims during the live debate was a good one (and probably threw Trump off even more).
I believe that the Democrats, flush with victory, are now calling for a second debate, but I’m not sure there will be one. If the polls show that voters (and the electoral college) have moved towards Harris, Trump will surely not agree to a second debate.
When I discussed this with Luana today, she came to a conclusion that is hers. And here it comes. There is one good outcome of this debate: whichever side loses will have to recalibrate. If Trump loses, then MAGA is gone and Trump has lost most of his influence in the GOP. If Harris loses, then the Democrats have to become yet more centrist (though I have to add that Harris has deliberately become more centrist recently as a pragmatic issue to win).
We don’t know who will win the election, and the next few days will show how much Trump’s embarrassing performance will cost the GOP. (Remember, he’s always been an awful debater but has nevertheless come out on top twice.) But regardless of that, there’s no question that the winner of the debate was Kamala Harris. I’m still not a big fan of hers, but was reminded last night why I’ve always regarded Trump as a joke—but a very dangerous joke.
Now, of course, it’s your turn to weigh in, and I ask you to do so in the comments. (There was some weighing in after my livestream post on the debate last night.)
I think she spanked him so well that he is now sending her a check for $130,000
😂
It is beyond vexing how there is more than a dozen people in the US who supports such an obnoxious, narcissistic buffoon as Trump, but that nearly HALF of the country does ought to be a great shame and embarrassment to you all.
+1
It’s also vexing that Harris is pounded for having “policy”deficiencies, at least according to some of her critics. While the only Trump “policies” that matter here are his views with respect to free and fair elections and the peaceful transfer of power. Both of which should instantly disqualify him from holding any public office, let alone the presidency.
Keep in mind that his entire career has been, essentially, a live appeal to the sunken cost fallacy.
No one wants to admit that they were wrong. It, unfortunately, happens elsewhere, as well
For a lot of people, it is. It surely is.
Well, as Madeleine Albright put it, we (allegedly) are the “Indispensable Nation.” “American Exceptionalism” and all that. (Would be have been better off with Boris Johnson?)
I am certainly glad Harris won but am disappointed with hers and many other Democrats position on Israel.
+1
Me too, I believe that she is doing what she does best which is speaking out of both sides of her mouth she is trying to appeal to the Hamas loving far left nut jobs and to Jewish voters at the same time , little does she know she has lost many Jewish
voters, After a statement I heard her say that Jews always vote left so she was not investing into us as she was the nut jobs I wanted to hear what Trump would do but he failed to say one thing he would do , so now I am forced to vote for Harris. But at least I am centrist , never wanted to vote for a lying criminal and like her policies on abortion. Right the only thing I dislike about her is her policies on Israel. But Trump has no policies but his own ego.
Unfortunately, I didn’t get to watch as I was traveling. I’ve only read some stories. Trump and others are saying that Harris only wants another debate because she feels she lost. There seems to be a consensus on the right that the moderators were biased (hardly a shock) in that they fact-checked Trump five times and Harris not at all. Frankly, the only outcome that could have made a difference is if Harris had been completed rattled and tanked it. As for Harris moving towards the center, my opinion is that’s just for show (and not much of that).
EDIT: Just saw this. A CNN poll of debate viewers still shows Trump is considered best able to handle the economy.
I just wished Harris had fact checked him on tariffs. Harris called it a sales tax which it essentially is, but it’s a hidden tax (like VAT in Europe). Tariffs are paid by the importer and the cost is past in to the consumer in higher costs of products. I have set up accounting systems for importers and I know how the importer pays the tariff to the government and passes on the cost to the consumer.
Trump was such an idiot on import tariffs. He said tariffs were paid by foreign governments and he specifically referred to the Chinese government. But you are correct, import tariffs are paid by the (US) importer. The effect this has on the US domestic price will vary from product to product depending upon the market dynamics. If there are no domestic producers the US price simply goes up by the tariff rate, 10% in Trump’s policy. Or where there is a domestic producer who doesn’t want to increase their market share, they may also increase their prices as well. Or possibly the US price increases by less than 10% or perhaps not at all. But the most likely outcome of import tariffs is increased prices for US consumers.
I think she threw him off guard with the handshake at the beginning. Biden and Trump didn’t shake hands but she did the old fashioned opening of shaking hands and greeting her opponent. Well done.
I am one of those voters who was moved by the debate to vote for Harris. My plan had been to write in Liz Cheney, but as she has said she will vote for Harris, I will follow her lead, and while it may be naive, I can’t see why anyone wouldn’t choose a candidate promising hope over a candidate promising retribution. I am in a red county in a red state, so it won’t matter, but still.
Every vote counts
Yes, every vote conts. Thank you.
No. Except in Maine and Nebraska the electoral college votes are first past the post. That is, each state gives all of their college votes to the winner in each state. In Maine and Nebraska they award one electoral vote to the popular vote winner in each of their congressional districts and their remaining two electoral votes to the statewide winner. So those two states can give college votes to more than one candidate. So as Reese says voting blue in a red county in a red state doesn’t have any impact. Only voters in the six or so swing states have any real real impact on choosing the winner. Kind of sad that a Kiwi needs to explain your voting system to you.
Thanks for the explanation, but dont you think the last sentence is unnecessary and kind of rude?
Correct. Very few Americans *do* understand their/our own system.
A red county is only a red county because historically, most voters in that county voted Republican. Voting blue in such a county may not have an immediate effect but it might move the needle slightly towards the Dems for future elections.
Similarly, every vote contributes to the popular vote. If you want the US to reform the ridiculous Electoral College system, then the winner not having the highest popular vote (as happened with Tr*mp in 2016) adds to your case.
The Electoral College is not ridiculous. It was chosen with the explicit intention of not allowing the Chief of the Executive and Commander-in-Chief to be elected by direct popular vote, just as the British Prime Minister and the King are not elected by direct popular vote. (The people play no role in the selection of either, and the only people who vote for or against the PM at all are those in his own House of Commons riding.) The idea of direct election of the President was considered but discarded as too risky for demagoguery (and this in an era when only free men with property could vote.) So the EC works exactly as intended.
Today it can be argued that the way the EC (slightly) favours states with small populations is a useful counter to the Democrats’ ability to pander to bloc votes of Muslims and racial minorities who vote 90% for them. This is politics. Morals don’t apply.
If the President were to be elected by popular vote, all the candidates would have to campaign in every single state, hankering after every single vote in cities large and small and tiny dusty hamlets, instead of sticking to the battleground states. Even “winning” California and New York would no longer matter because the votes of the millions of Republicans in those states would now count in the deciding total. They would find criss-crossing the country (and half of the Pacific Ocean) expensive and exhausting. A Westminster party leader typically only visits competitive swing ridings personally using the same logic as American candidates with their eyes on the Electoral College. He can rely on the safe seats voting for his party, putting him in office, and the hopeless seats voting against. An American presidential candidate knows that no matter how many Congressional seats his party wins it doesn’t directly help him win the presidency.
It would be useful for American civics if Ms Harris were to win the Electoral College without winning the popular vote, such as if enough Democratic voters stayed home that she won the landslide states by only 3-5 percentage points instead of 25 or 30. That would shut the Democrats up forever about a Constitutional amendment to eliminate the EC.
I can sincerely state that I gained and reinforced my complete trust in Kamala Harris to do exactly what she says.
(Bold added):
“Communism alone is capable of providing really complete democracy, and the more complete it is, the sooner it will become unnecessary and wither away of its own accord..”
Vladimir Lenin
The State and the Revolution: The Marxist Doctrine of the State and the Tasks of the Proletariat in the Revolution
-Chapter 5
1917
“I am always going to interpret these [Black Lives Matter ] protests as an essential component of evolution in our country – as an essential component – or mark – of a real democracy.”
-Kamala Harris
26 Sept. 2020
The Hill interview:
youtu.be/hhlGqeJRaHg?si=K2kt4qk4Bo5eH2yM
You Can Trust The Communists (to do exactly as they say)
-Fred Schwartz
1960, 1961
Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Apparently you’ve been paying attention. Vice President Harris is apt to become our next president since Trump is an ick and Blue America will do its level best to buy her this election, so we should all be paying attention to her words and actions over the last few years.
Also forgot to note :
The 10 September 2024 Debate Between Trump and Harris Did Not Take Place
Following Jean Baudrillard’s
The Gulf War did not take place
Indiana University Press, 1995
(Originally French, 1991)
If Harris is a Communist, as I believe you are implying with your quote-juxtaposition game, she’s the crappiest Communist I’ve seen.
That, or the most fiendishly clever one.
That’s their brand – sophistry – or, as Prophet Marcuse put it in Counterrevolution and Revolt (1972), “alchemy of the word” (italics original).
Her comment about the protests was spot on, and, of course, has nothing whatsoever to do with communism.
You will be unable to show otherwise.
The right to protest is enshrined in the 1st Amendment. Peacefully.
Masterful dialectic.
Yeah, I know, James Lindsay always goes on and on about about how democracy means something sinister when someone he suspects is a Marxist uses the term. But in this case, emphasizing “democracy” has an obvious, non-sinister interpretation:
when the candidate of the other party has thrown around baseless accusations of voter fraud, pressured officials to commit actual voter fraud, schemed to have the election results overturned with fake electors, and finally incited an insurrection to stop the certification of election results… well then, yes, emphasizing that your side respects democracy and the other doesn’t is an obvious move.
sublation
I hope you never go away, TP.
Lol. You don’t trust communists unless one of them makes a claim about democracy that provides you with a spurious argument that Harris is a communist or that she wants to end democracy in the USA.
Lenin transformed the Russian Empire into an authoritarian dictatorship. Are you really going to trust what he says about democracy? No.
In the USA, only one person in recent history has tried to overthrow democracy. Only one person has told Christians that he will fix things so well, they’ll never need to vote again. That person is Harris’s opponent. If you are concerned about the future of democracy in the USA, vote Harris.
“This democratic method of resolving contradictions among the people was epitomized in 1942 in the formula “unity, criticism, unity”. To elaborate, it means starting from the desire for unity, resolving contradictions through criticism or struggle and arriving at a new unity on a new basis. In our experience this is the correct method of resolving contradictions among the people. In 1942 we used it to resolve contradictions inside the Communist Party […]”
-Mao Tse-Tung
On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People
(February 27, 1957)
1st pocket edition, p. 12
Harris did a good job, both when she was speaking and when she was not. When Trump was saying crazy things, Harris was looking at him with expressions of incredulity on her face, and even mockery. She was very aware of the split-screen, so even when she wasn’t speaking, she was indeed swaying the audience and having an impact. Her defense of abortion rights was obviously heartfelt and effective. She was perhaps at her most genuine at that point, her emotion on full display. At other times she was also effective, but one could hear practiced soundbites encroaching. They were not all that noticeable, but they were there, and they added a tinge of insincerity to her presentation.
I agree that Harris’s statements on Israel were either naive or were calibrated for “both sides.” She rightly blamed Hamas for the atrocities of October 7, but (on the other side) decried the loss of innocent life. In so doing, she ignored the fact that not all the lost lives were so innocent—most Palestinians polled support Hamas—and she ignored that fact that Israel does everything it can to prevent civilian loss of life even as Hamas quite cynically and purposely uses those lives as munitions on the front line. I suppose that all of this would be too much to explain in a debate, but it needs to be said and I hope she says it at some point—before the election so that I can tell if she really has a good grasp of the situation or not.
Regarding a two-state solution: neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis will accept a two-state solution at this time. The Israelis don’t want a legitimized terror state on their borders, nor do they want to reward Hamas for committing atrocities. The Palestinians—having been brainwashed into hating Jews and the “Zionist project” by Hamas and UNRWA—demand nothing less than all the land from the river to the sea. So Harris’s call for a two-state solution is hopelessly naive, at least in the near term. I hope for a peaceful accommodation between the parties at some point, but I don’t see a two-state solution being successful for a very long time.
As a foreigner looking in, once again I find myself wondering “these two are the best presidential candidates that the US can find?”
From within, a heartfelt +1.
as an american born citizen, i ask myself the same question
The best people don’t go into politics, anywhere. Why would they? If you are good at anything else you should do that thing, and nearly everyone does. Politics whether electoral or institutional attracts people who are attracted to power because that’s all it offers, which tends to corrupt. People keen to elect an activist government that will fix society’s ills should contemplate the kind of people they are delegating that “fixer” power to.
It also, in the West, offers a great pension plan.
Well Tom,
until last month the Stupidest Kennedy was also vying to be Leader of Free World. But the Free World perennially looks to the USA for the most moronic political rumours. In circa 2016 one had ‘Hillary Clinton running a paedophile ring out of a Washington DC pizza parlour’.
I am hoping now for a rumour of ‘Kamala running a paedophile & fentanyl smuggling ring from a Midwestern fast food joint which serves cat and dog meat as pizza toppings’.
And time for Q Anon to evolve into R or S Anon.
I thought she did extremely well. Much better than I expected. She was prepared very well by her team and it looks like she didn’t start from the prep. Her experience as a prosecutor showed (I think; that’s what it felt like to me at least). What I found really good is that she directly spoke to the camera (= viewers and voters) several times, addressing their needs. He just can’t do that.
On the subject of Trump complaining about ABC News fact-checking him in real time (he wants ABC’s broadcasting license revoked — very First Amendment of him), fellow traveler Ophelia Benson just remarked , “To sum up, Trump lies every time he opens his mouth and Harris does not, therefore, Harris is cheating and the news moderators are helping her do it. It’s flawless Trumpian logic and it could work.”
Oh, it definitely works.
I can’t believe some commenters on this site are actually agreeing with Trump that Harris is a communist! Talk about the ick factor. I love WEIT, and I used to love the comments section, but honestly I don’t want to engage with anyone who supports Trump or who could take seriously the claim that Harris is a communist. I don’t want anything like ideological conformity in the comments, of course, but some of these exchanges lately have truly dispirited me. Of course, I am not referring to our beloved PCC and his posts; I still return everyday to the site and will continue to do so. Maybe I should stop reading the comments, however.
It seems to me that you’re overreacting here. I can find only a SINGLE comment in this thread (not “some”, much less “several”) that even implies that Harris is a Communist. And of course you need NOT engage that person.
I’m reading the comments on this post, and I don’t get the same dispirited feeling you do (presumably you’re a Harris supporter), so I’m baffled. Seriously. I’d be delighted to hear why you feel this way, because I don’t understand how the comments support your asstion.
+1
There’s a place called Substack where there is a very long list of newsletters where all the comments express “love and hugs forever” to the author and one another. That is my idea of boring!
Trump’s lies and misrepresentations are well known in this audience. I don’t include as “lies” his characteristic exaggerations and intensifiers. (Inflation the likes of which we have never seen in this country! Everybody agrees . . .!) So, I’ll turn to Harris, I’m not a fan of either one, but Harris clearly won, as these things go.
Certain things we just come to accept from our politicians: spin (tariffs as “sales tax,” state of the economy in 2021); reversal of one’s positions from a primary to a general election (fracking, defund the police); attempting to guilt a person by association with associates who have associates (Project 2025); insistence that the opponent believes and will do the opposite of what he says (signing a national abortion ban). I roll my eyes at most such stuff; political silly season is here.
I get more miffed when politicians won’t answer pertinent questions (inflation and the health of lower-wage American consumers); when they refrain from stating positions they have long held but that don’t play well with the public (an array of gender/trans-related matters); when they make excuses, refuse to accept responsibility, and blame the other side for their own problems (the border and Afghanistan). (As an aside, I did step out for lengthy portions. Did I miss the questions about free speech and the fight against “hate” and “misinformation,” about trans issues colliding with women’s rights, about DEI and Kamala’s stance on equity?)
But none of these examples prompt me to throw my coffee cup through the TV screen. My fingers do get a bit itchy when I hear supposed misstatements of fact or faulty insinuations, “errors” that are likely intended to deceive the listener (SCOTUS ruling does not allow any misconduct a president might do, police officers were not killed by January 6th protestors). Same with the distortions and out-of-context statements, again, intended to deceive (“bloodbath,” “dictator on day one”).
And then we come to the lie. A falsehood stated with intent. The intent clear because the falsehood is repeated over and over and over despite its clear refutation by multiple sources. It is repeated because it works to deceive the intended audience. And then it graduates to the elevated heights of political mythology. Charlottesville. Neo-Nazis are “fine people.” Biden tells it repeatedly. Other politicians tell it repeatedly. Voters repeat it repeatedly. Harris was more impressive and slippery in her version. She rolled it out in the 2020 VP debate, during which Pence fact-checked her in real time. Didn’t matter. Last night, however, Harris dropped the neo-Nazi reference. What she said is technically true: there was a mob of people carrying Tiki torches, spewing antisemitic hate. And, yes, Donald Trump did say that “there are very fine people, on both sides.” Ergo . . .. Unlike her boss, she doesn’t explicitly tell us to conclude (falsely) that Donald Trump called neo-Nazis fine people. She doesn’t have to; her party has been doing so for seven years.
For those who have only seen the deceptively edited clips, below is a video of Trump’s Charlottesville comments that puts both his assessment of blame and his “very fine people” comment into context.
I worked as a video editor and saw the raw footage of the Unite The Right rally in Charlottesville. The protestors were neonazis. From the head of the crowd, to the tail, they were waving swastikas and neonazi symbols meant to look like swastikas. They were every few feet. It would be impossible, unless you were blind and deaf, to be in that crowd and not know you were marching shoulder to shoulder with nazis.
Trump’s attempt to claim there were “Very fine people” who were in the crowd and somehow not nazis is ridiculous. He acknowledges, in the clip you present, that he “Saw the same footage you did” and still makes the claim.
So, yes, Trump looked at a crowd of nazis, said they were very fine people, but then wants us to accept that he wasn’t talking about the nazis. Who is he talking about then? They guy two feet to the left of the swastika?
Claiming he wasn’t praising nazis is ridiculous. Putting it into context doesn’t make it any better.
Sam Harris has an excellent article on his substack on this subject:
The Lie That Will Not Die
As I always tell people, there’s no need to exaggerate Trump’s follies. He’s bad enough when presented honestly.
“He’s bad enough when presented honestly.”
Precisely. There comes a time at which people can become, in essence, the very thing they fight against and hate. Quite a few people in this country—on both sides—have crossed that line. (There are also fine people on both sides.) Those who lie to gain power cannot be trusted with the truth. Those who unreservedly applaud them cannot be trusted in their judgment.
It is behind a paywall, what is the argument?
Harris’ article is behind a paywall so I can’t read it, but a quick search indicates his defense boils down, again, to Trump’s declaring that he isn’t praising nazis when he said “very fine people”.
The Unite the Right rally was organized by Neonazis
If featured, in its advertising materials, neonazi speakers.
The participants chanted neonazi slogans and waved neonazi flags.
So who was he referring to?
“Who you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?”
Wow, Doug. Thank you for posting that. I did *not* witness that press conference and have only heard clips taken out of context. Finally! Thanks!!
“Hungarian President Viktor Orbán”
Prime Minister.
(Mafia Don would be more fitting, but that is unofficial.)
“ Remember, he’s always been an awful debater but has nevertheless come out on top twice.”
Twice? He only won a single election. Unless you include Biden stepping aside.
That’s what I mean; he “won” because Biden was shown up so badly that he had to give up his campaign to be re-elected. That wasn’t really Trump’s victory so much as Biden’s defeat. But that’s what I meant.
“Remember, he’s always been an awful debater but has nevertheless come out on top twice.”
You mean nearly?
It is true that his debates have all been alarming-but clearly his performances have not discouraged a large # of voters from voting for him. Similar to many other things that have could have and didn’t. In general my feeling is that debates, even one sided ones, don’t do much to much to move the needle. An obvious exception is the Biden Trump debate in June of course. In 2016 people thought Clinton killed him in the debates. Each time the polls rapidly widened for her, only to creep back to a close race each time. This is a sign that winning the debate merely induces partisan response changes but not true voting intention changes. Will at least be interesting to see if the polls do the same here (move toward her then creep back to where they are now) or not.
What I meant, as I’ve explained in this thread, is that Trump defeated Clinton in the election after he gave an awful debate performance, and he “defeated” Biden because Biden was so “unengaged” that he was forced to drop out of the race. I did not say, nor do I believe, that victory for Harris in this debate means that she will for sure win the election, for I have long memories of the Clinton defeat.
I’m not sure what “you mean nearly” means.
I wondered if you meant he *nearly* won 2x-which is of course true (and I posted this before the other post and your response appeared-so of course now I know what you meant).
In hindsight, I’ve come around to thinking that it was a net good that she said little about policies. What policies that she has proposed (going after price gougers, giving people $ toward housing) have been dismissed as unworkable and even counter-productive by people who seem to know about these things. Those will likely be policy failures in her presidential future, but for now what is important is to win.
If she pushed those further, then the commentariat would be compelled to point out how bad they really are at a time when everyone is listening and thinking about their vote. Politics is a funny thing. You have to win, and if you can do it by being vague and a bit dishonest, then you should be vague and a bit dishonest. I could never be a politician.
In our time zone, the debate was on at 2.00am. The first indication, to me, of what was happening was this morning when I checked my Twitter feed, and from what I was reading it sounded like Trump was being excoriated by Harris. People couldn’t seem to believe what they were seeing. I was sceptical, because the people on my feed are generally anti-Trump anyway, but when we listened to the full debate this afternoon I could see what people meant.
Call me an old cynic, but was Trump so convinced that he is one of the best debaters of all time, that he thought it unworthy of him to prepare properly? After all, in his redoubtable all-knowingness, was he thinking that his opponent was only a woman, and a Black one at that? How could he lose? And according to his comments after the debate he didn’t!
One BBC reporter said that she thought Kamala didn’t do enough to explain her policies. If this had been a British election she would have been right, but you guys seem to have a very different approach to elections, and to a Brit they all seem more like beauty contests (And, of course, we know that Trump is better looking than Kamala 😁), so I don’t agree with the reporter. All Harris had to do was to look normal so that Trump’s obvious inadequacies would be exposed for all to see, and if possible make him look embarrassing, or even better a laughing stock, without herself coming across as arrogant or derisive, which is a difficult balance to maintain, but she managed it admirably. Hilary Clinton she isn’t.
I remember that about the time Biden withdrew one commentator saying that this election was Trump’s to lose. Maybe he just did.
On the “people got bored at Trump rallies” notion, it was suggested by an article in the NYT yesterday with photos of both Trump and Harris’s rally crowds. Why Trump’s audience thinned out over time is not made clear, but the photos show it happening.
Does he still pay the crowds to show up, like when he first hit the campaign in 2015/16? If so, does he not bother to actually pay them, as he has a long and well documented history of in his business dealings?
A check bouncing would certainly make me leave early…..
My thanks to our host for an excellent summation of last night’s debate, and to the commenters for their responses. This is a valuable venue for shining more light than heat on such matters, unlike most other online outlets.
Maybe DJT is treated unfairly – with all the fact checking and the way the justice system goes after him and the impeachments etc. Or it could be that he has no integrity or respect for the law, so he lies and cheats a lot and naturally is scrutinized and prosecuted disproportionately (compared to someone honest and good).
I think Kamala missed a great opportunity, when Cheeto kept braying about how he got more votes than any Republican in history. She should have replied, yes, that’s true (I’m assuming that it is), but that’s because more people voted in 2020 than ever before, but nevertheless, he still LOST by around 10M votes, up from the ~3M that he lost by in 2016, proving twice that the majority of Americans do NOT want him as POTUS.
THAT might well have sent him into a terminally fulminating tailspin.
Isn’t it just what should happen in a country with a growing population? – more and more people doing everything in record numbers (including voting for losers).
I think her comment about millions of people firing him in the last election contributed to getting his dander up.
No that’s a factually correct but boring and complex answer.
She should have pointed out that Sleepy Joe Biden also got more votes than any Republican in history including Tr*mp himself.
Trump didn’t write Project 2025, has repeatedly denied having anything to do with it and has explicitly said he doesn’t support several of the things in it.
Pretending that he’s going to implement it would in any other country be actionable defamation – along with the strange fabricated federal ban on abortion, the repeated misquoting of his comments on Charlottesville, the false accusations of inciting an insurrection.
Of the four people in that debate none of them looked credible.
I don’t understand why anyone would ding Harris or Biden for lack of support for Israel. As far as I can tell, they continue to give Israel everything they want, despite the political liability it presents among Muslim Americans. As for Harris not giving specific policy details last night, seems to me there was no time for that nor is that kind of “debate” the appropriate forum.
Anecdotes around my corner, folks I know starting out not having much of an attitude towards Harris, worrying about her appeal or policy details, now very big fans. When we vote for that Democratic presidential ticket we will do so with unreserved enthusiasm. We won’t be “holding our noses”. Started with the Milwaukee (West Allis, WI,) speech in late July and has grown. Goldilocks effect (not so good here; but what about that thing there,, etc.) notwithstanding, she’s really very good. I think she’s been underestimated — or has risen to the occasion. And she’s very effective in laying out what’s at stake.
This “debate” — a farce. She had his guts for garters.