The much-anticipated, long-awaited Harris-Trump presidential debate is history. The questions are (1) who won, (2) will the results affect the polls, and (3) will there be a second debate? Read on for the answers.
The post-debate polls I have seen are all over the place, and as is always the case each side’s spin doctors claimed victory. But, to be fair, the consensus seems to be that Harris “won” the debate. According to CNN North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper opined that Harris’ performance will “move the needle” in his state. But before Harris begins to pick out curtains for the White House, I have a word of caution. Firstly, history has shown that “winning” a debate does not always translate to a bump in the polls, and when it does the advantage is often fleeting. The reasons have varied, but that has generally been the case. For example:
- Post-debate, the same polls indicate that the crucial swing states are all still within the margin of error.
- In 2012 a CNN poll reported that Mitt Romney won the first debate over Barack Obama. He received a post-debate bump in the polls. But, as we know, Obama won the election.
- In 2016 the consensus was that Hillary Clinton had “won” all three debates over Donald Trump. She, too, received a bump in the polls. However, again, Trump won the election.
So, today, Dems can rejoice over Harris’ “victory,” but history has proven it does not mean she will win the election. A lot can happen between now and ED and usually does.
This was an extremely difficult debate to analyze. I have tried to be objective, however, I suspect that some of you will conclude that my comments are biased in favor of Trump. That said, below please find my thoughts, comments and analyses:
- This was not a “debate” in the strict sense of the word, nor was it intended to be. As you saw, the moderators asked each candidate questions in turn to which they responded. Then the other candidate had the opportunity to respond. In the interest of fairness, the moderators were supposed to refrain from commenting or exhibiting any bias at all. That was not always the case as you shall see below.
- My most significant takeaway from the debate was that the moderators exhibited considerable and frequent bias against Trump. Thus, they failed in their primary duty. They fact-checked Trump frequently (not always correctly as I will denote below), yet I cannot recall any instance of them doing so to Harris. At times, it appeared to be three against one. Many GOPers were incensed. According to CNN Trump asserted to it that ABC News’ bias was so extreme that the network “should have its broadcast license revoked.”
- In my view, each side had its own objectives with respect to the debate. Harris’ was to (a) appear presidential, (b) speak in generalities to avoid being pinned down on the specifics of her radical policies, (c) avoid her traditional “word salads” and cackling, (d) “spin” the Biden-Harris Administration’s accomplishments or lack thereof, (e) try to goad Trump into one of his traditional bullying, name-calling episodes, and (f) most importantly, blame Trump for everything – every failed policy from the economy to the border to abortion, even if it meant exaggerating, obfuscating, misrepresenting, or lying. She knew she could succeed in these endeavors because the moderators would assist her and would not fact-check her. For the most part, she accomplished her objectives.
- Trump’s objectives were to (a) expose her far-left policies to voters who for whatever reasons, have little or no familiarity of her and policies, (b) expose the duplicity, misrepresentations, mischaracterizations, and outright lying with respect to her claimed policy changes, (c) tie her to Biden, (d) refrain from any bullying or name calling, and (e) explain how his policies would be better for the American people.
- In my opinion, she succeeded for the most part, whereas Trump, for the most part, did not. Why? Well, for one thing, Trump seemed desultory, and he gave an uncharacteristically lackluster performance. The more significant factor, however, was the moderators. The moderators in a debate have one simple job – to be fair and impartial. Their job is NOT to fact-check, dispute or assist one of the debaters. The ABC News moderators failed miserably (or, perhaps, in view of the network’s history of bias against Trump, 95% unfavorable compared to 100% favorable for Harris, succeeded brilliantly). They fact-checked Trump frequently, sometimes incorrectly. On a couple of occasions, they even disputed his statements. On the other hand, they allowed Harris to bob and weave, obfuscate, deceive and even lie. No fact-checking there.
- Apparently, the night before the debate Harris finally posted some policies on her website. But they were vague and short on specifics. Trump derided them as being “plagiarized” from Biden’s policies.
- Harris tended to avoid specifics. For the most part, she spoke in generalities, platitudes and slogans.
- Harris continually reiterated how “everyone” hated Trump. Yes, he is hated by a portion of the electorate, but not “everyone.” In fact, roughly half the voters love him.
- While Trump was speaking and the camera was on her Harris often made weird faces, which was meant to convey her disagreement or displeasure. I found that to be distracting, unprofessional, and disrespectful. Also, on various occasions it appeared she was trying to interrupt Trump while he was speaking. Of course, she couldn’t because her microphone was turned off. The NY Post referred to them derisively as her “Marcel Marceau shtick.” In the opinion of Miranda Devine, political reporter for the NY Post these “reinforced the fatal inauthenticity of the rest of her debate performance, which was a string of memorized set pieces with little reference to the question being asked and delivered in an odd staccato.”
- One of the major reasons for the debate was for the electorate to ascertain Harris’ policies. Heretofore, because she had largely refrained from giving news conferences or speaking without the aid of a teleprompter, according to polls as many as 70% were not clear on them. In her entire career up until few months ago she has espoused far left policies. In this electronic age there are a copious number of quotes of them if one cares to look. Now, with the election looming suddenly she has been disavowing most of them in favor of more moderate ones. Voters wanted to know if these substantial modifications were genuine or were they flip-flops to win the election. I would like to denote that in a rare moment of candor erstwhile Harris supporter Bernie Sanders disclosed they were just temporary to win the election. Everyone knows that she cannot possibly win if the voters were to ascertain her real policies.
- As of today, voters still don’t know, because she frequently responded to questions with lies, half-truths, nonresponsive generalities, non-sequiturs or avoided answering them entirely. The moderators should have pressed her with follow-up questions or fact-checked her answers. I don’t recall even one instance where they did.
- On the other hand, they frequently fact-checked or even disputed Trump’s answers, sometimes incorrectly. That was not their job. That exposed their deep bias against Trump.
- The most egregious instance was regarding abortion, although there were several others. They claimed that his point that the state of Virginia under a previous governor had allowed post-birth abortions was incorrect. On the contrary, it was true. Also, they allowed Harris to assert inaccurately that Trump supported an abortion ban. As most people know, Trump has advocated that the voters in each state should decide that state’s abortion policy. In the wake of SCOTUS’ recent decision abortion is basically a non-issue, but the Dems are trying to make it one as they don’t have any others.
- As I said, most observers opined that Trump “lost” the debate, but he did utter a few memorable zingers.
- He said Harris now agreed with his policies to such an extent that he thought about sending her a MAGA hat.
- He said many of the policy changes Harris is claiming she’ll effect on Day 1, such as the immigration problems and resuming drilling and fracking, can be implemented right now by Executive Orders. We don’t need Congress to pass any laws. He challenged Harris to go to DC right now, wake up Biden, and get him to sign the requisite Executive Orders.
- The following issues were either ignored, mischaracterized or glossed over:
- Are Americans better off today than they were four years ago. Why/why not.
- Income tax hike of up to 80% for high earners.
- Tax on unrealized income.
- Rising prices for groceries and other products and services.
- Single payer healthcare plan to be administered by the federal government.
- Illegal migrants being treated better than citizens.
- Various freebies for illegal migrants, such as healthcare, social security, housing, education, and sex change operations even for those in prison (all to be funded by US taxpayers).
- Late term abortions when the fetus is viable even after birth, which is allowed now in Minnesota, where Walz is governor, and a few other states.
- Mandatory gun buyback program, which is tantamount to gun confiscation.
- Green New Deal, which she co-sponsored and which would cost over $93 trillion.
- Bans on various popular products such as red meat and plastic straws.
- Electric vehicle mandate.
- Bans on offshore drilling and fracking.
- Border security.
- Allowing illegal immigrants to vote.
- The ill-conceived, ill-advised, misnamed Inflation Reduction Act, for which she was “proud” to cast the tiebreaking vote. Contrary to its name this act will cost trillions of dollars, was chock full of “pork” for party donors and friends and actually increased inflation and interest rates.
- Defunding the police
- Abolish or sharply curtail the powers of ICE.
- No-cash bail laws.
- Establishing a fund to post bail for criminals.
- Lawlessness in many cities defended and unpunished.
- Billions of dollars provided to Iran.
- Dem Party coup to oust Biden, which disenfranchised, some 12 million Dem primary voters, and nominate Harris who has never, ever won even one delegate vote.
- Student loan forgiveness.
- Botched withdrawal from Afghanistan.
- Reparations.
I found some post-debate polls interesting, for example:
- A NY Times survey disclosed that although a majority of the pundits thought Harris had won the debate many undecided voters surveyed were not so sure.
- A group of independent voters tracking the debate in real time on the economy were as positive toward Trump as his supporters.
- Reuters polled ten undecided voters after the debate. Six said they would vote for Trump, three for Harris, and one remained undecided.
- Another independent voter put it succinctly: “I guess I’m leaning more on his facts than her vision.”
- Commonwealth Attorney pollster Matt Lowery opined the debate “was not Trump’s best day, but it [didn’t seem] to hurt him. Undecideds are “not sold” on Harris. Trump has now pulled even in MI. Trump’s super-packs must help him to disseminate Harris’ true policies to the electorate (via ads). He cannot do it alone.
- Pollster Mark Penn, CEO of Stagwell, a marketing group, opined that voters care the most about the economy (no revelation since that is always the case). Furthermore, Harris’ real positions seem to be slowly seeping out to voters, but Trump has to work harder to disseminate them more fully.
- Charles Payne, a Fox News financial journalist, denoted that Biden-Harris’ actions have enriched their donors at the expense of the middle class. He added that the deficits they have created are “unsustainable.” Also, the runaway spending has raised interest rates and is “imploding” the jobs market. The Fed cannot cut interest rates because “inflation is at a 40-year high.”
CONCLUSION
As I said, as is normally the case, both sides are claiming victory. It’s probably too early to know the post-debate impact on the election for sure. The answer will probably be determined once we see the post-debate polls. Although I don’t know who won, I can definitely tell you who lost – the American people. The people did not learn much, if anything, about Harris’ core beliefs, which, in a free society, is unacceptable. A goodly percentage of them did not know before the debate, and they still don’t know now.
Both sides have expressed interest in a second debate. Supposedly, they are negotiating the details. I’m skeptical, but we’ll see.
We Built It Blog by Larry Jacob 