Last night, of course, was the first (and probably only) presidential debate between Kamala Harris
and Donald Trump. If you wish to watch it, you can do so
here:
Note that this feed, which is the official ABC News feed, includes roughly one hour of pre-debate commentary. We've
set the link to jump to the start of the actual debate, but if that doesn't work, you need to advance to 59:58.
Let us also take this opportunity to remind readers that we write up our comments before reading or hearing what
anyone else has to say. So, if we appear to be writing from la-la land, that is why. Also, as best as possible, we try to
see things through the eyes of low-information voters. Such folks might learn something new from what they saw on
screen. Someone who is high-information enough to read this site?
Not so many but there are undoubtedly some well-educated Republican readers who prioritize tax cuts and are torn about who to vote for.
Anyhow, the executive summary of the debate, at least as we see it, is this: Harris clearly won. There is no
dominant storyline that will emerge from the debate, like "Joe Biden is clearly falling apart." Nor are there
any meme-y moments that will enter the annals of presidential debate lore, like "There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe"
or "binders full of women" or "There you go again." Nonetheless, Harris clearly came out on top.
We organized
our previous debate write-up
around each of the "players" on stage, and we see no reason to change that approach. And so, here we go:
Kamala Harris: Our guess is that Harris, who is still working to introduce herself to
the American people, did not enter the debate looking for a home run. More like a solid double (sorry to our European
readers who don't know baseball; Euro translation: Harris was not trying to score a goal, she just wanted to get
a few good corner kicks in). Certainly, a double is what she produced.
Harris' answers were measured and were very competent. Not exciting, generally, but competent. Compared to what
happened with Joe Biden... well, "competent" should have Democrats dancing naked in the streets. Harris made sure
to get the highlights of her résumé in there—prosecutor, has negotiated with foreign leaders,
cast the tiebreaking vote on the infrastructure bill—and she came off as presidential. This is what she
needed to accomplish.
Her other goal, which was significant enough that it could be listed as Goal 1B, was to take Donald Trump down
a few pegs. One way to do that was to associate him with unpopular policies and decisions, which she worked
mightily to do. She referred to "HIS Project 2025" and the "Trump sales tax" and made sure to point out that
the border bill was killed on his orders.
In particular, of course, Harris wanted to make the case that Trump is not pro-women. As one of her several soundbites,
she blamed Trump for Dobbs, and referred to the resulting policy outcomes as the "Trump abortion ban." That said,
if there was a moment that REALLY cost Trump the votes of some women, it was a moment that likely won't be mentioned in many
write-ups, because it's hard to describe. Nonetheless, there was a time when Trump was answering a question, and Harris
said something that only he could hear (because her mic was off). He was already steaming because she'd just pooh-poohed
his success as a businessman, and
this
is how he reacted to her talking at the same time as him:
You really should watch it; it's only 10 seconds or so. Maybe we are making mountains out of molehills here, but the
dynamic there certainly made our skin crawl. In many workplaces, a man addressing a woman like that could get himself
into big trouble.
Of course, Harris gets some of the credit (if you want to call it that) for that interaction, because she'd been
needling Trump, and trying to get him to react. She successfully managed to get under his skin a few other times, most
notably when she turned to the camera
and invited
viewers to attend one of Trump's rallies and see that the
crowds are small and that people often get bored and leave early. He did NOT like that:
This one, you have to watch about a minute to get the full experience. If you don't want to do that, Trump basically
blew his top and insisted that he has the biggest, bestest rallies anyone has ever had.
We'll say a couple more things about Harris that are pretty closely related. First, she used the politician's trick of
answering the question you wanted to answer, rather than the question you were asked, very liberally (no pun intended).
So did Trump, of course; when Harris did it, she was usually in the same ZIP Code as the question. Trump, often not so
much.
Second, once we are done writing our comments, we'll be interested to look at what the fact-checkers have to say. On one
hand, they tend to find things to talk about for both candidates, in the name of "fairness." On the other hand, Trump
told whopper after whopper after whopper. So, Daniel Dale & Co. aren't going to have a problem filling column
inches. Harris, for her part, was actually very careful to avoid even politician lies (far more careful than Biden was).
We are reasonably well informed, presumably, and were watching to see when she might indulge in a little spin, and she
basically didn't do it. The biggest "lie" she told, we would say, was her assertion that the "Trump sales tax" would add
20% to the cost of goods. She didn't explain that very well, but it was presumably a reference to the impact of his
tariffs. If so, it's a mild pants-on-fire moment, at most.
Donald Trump: Let's start with the good news for Trump. His debate prep was reportedly
lackadaisical. Maybe that is true, and maybe it's a lie told in order to manage expectations. Whatever the case may be,
the first third (or maybe even half) of the debate went pretty well for him. Yes, the fact that he made a beeline for
his podium and tried to avoid shaking hands with Harris was not a great look, but beyond that, for 30-40 minutes he had
plausible answers to most questions and he managed to maintain a reasonable level of discipline, including avoiding his
notorious "air accordion."
The problem is that, in the end, Trump gotta Trump. And as the debate wore on, his discipline eroded, and the things
that tend to damage him emerged in full force. To start with, and as we have already made note, there are the lies.
Again, we try to watch the debate through low-information eyes, as best we can. And here is a (non-exhaustive) selection
of things Trump said that we would guess don't pass the smell test with anyone:
Every legal scholar, every Democrat, every Republican, liberal, conservative, they all wanted [abortion access] to
be brought back to the states where the people could vote. And that's what happened, happened.
Now she wants to do transgender operations on illegal aliens that are in prison.
If she's president, I believe that Israel will not exist within two years from now.
In Springfield, they're eating the dogs. The [undocumented immigrants] that came in. They're eating the cats.
They're eating—they're eating the pets of the people that live there. And this is what's happening in our country.
And it's a shame.
That last one is very nearly a literal racist dog bullhorn, as the implication is that it's Asians (e.g., the hated
Chinese) plus Haitians (who come from a sh**hole country) who are eating people's dogs and cats. This one was such a
howler that the moderators, who were apparently prepared for Trump to go there, pushed back and said they had
double-checked with officials in Springfield and it's not true.
One of us, (V), who heard that thought Trump was just out of his mind loony and telling his base: "If you vote for her, some
immigrant will come eat your puppy" but (V) missed the racist bullhorn. Maybe there were other racist bullhorns that we both missed
but could have been picked up either by the intended audience (who will love it) or the targets of the attack (who will hate it).
In addition, particularly as his discipline began to break down, Trump also did a number of self-owns (for the
Europeans: own goals). For example, at one point, he talked about how solar energy is evil and retrograde, but then
talked about how much he loves solar energy. On another occasion, he talked about how horrible Obamacare is and then
took credit for saving the program. Also, near the end, he was asked about Kamala Harris' race, and he gave the
"disciplined" response (I don't care), but then just could not help himself, and went on a tirade about how she's not
really Black. If you would like to watch that moment,
here
it is:
As he was going off the rails, he also slipped in a quick reference to Harris having gotten where she's gotten because
"she put out." We presume that women voters are just going to love that, too.
There is also one moment that we're not sure how to categorize. Lie? Self-own? Both? Something else? About a week ago,
Trump admitted that he lost the 2020 election "by a whisker." We did not even bother to write an item about it, because
there was no way he was going to stick with that. And indeed, when asked about it last night, he claimed that he was
joking when he said that, and that he still believes the election was stolen. Trump's advisors must have been tearing
their hair out, because that claim does not help him at all.
Trump also made clear, at least to those who recognize these names, that he lives in a bubble. When he was pressed on
his controversial remarks after Charlottesville, he said that reporters have supported his version of events. Which
reporters (or, really, "reporters")? Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity and Jesse Waters, all of them mainstays of Trump's
beloved Fox. Later, when pushing back against Harris' claim that foreign leaders laugh at Trump, he said that lots of
foreign leaders think he's great, and specifically cited... Viktor Orbán. These are not the world's best sources,
to say the least. Well, maybe for the base they are, but he needs some non-base votes.
So, that's the good and the bad for Trump. And now, something in the "we're not sure" category. Obviously, one of
Trump's main goals last night was to make Joe Biden into an anchor around Harris' neck. This is a tricky business,
because he wants to saddle her with the bad, while giving her no credit for the good (and she, of course, wants the
opposite). Early on, he had a pretty effective line that Harris "has no policy" and that she's getting everything from
Biden. He also got in a few lines blaming her for the border situation.
However, as his discipline began to fade, his assertions got more outlandish, enough so that Harris said "You're not
running against Joe Biden, you're running against me." The most obvious example came when Trump suggested they shut down
the debate, and that Harris return immediately to Washington and sign a bill closing the border. Needless to say, it
doesn't work like that, on several levels, and presumably even low-information voters are aware of it.
So, we just don't know if Trump was successful in sticking Harris with Biden's baggage. Our guess is "probably not," but
we're not certain enough to go with it.
The Moderators: We think that the moderators, Linsey Davis and David Muir, were
about as good as is possible when you have Donald Trump on stage. They were clearly well prepared, they asked
some good questions, and they were certainly better than Jake Tapper and Dana Bash.
As we note above, both candidates dodged questions. In some cases, Davis or Muir tried to bring them back on
point, albeit not with much success. Further, Davis and Muir also pushed back against some of the lies that
Trump told. Not all of them, which would be difficult, but some. We think moderators should feel free to do
that.
Our biggest complaint about the moderating is that Trump was allowed to seize the stage at least a half a
dozen times when it was not his turn to speak, thus giving him probably 8-9 minutes of extra camera time
to which he was not entitled. If the microphones can be shut off when it's not someone's turn, then why
wasn't Trump's mic shut off? Although, that said, the Harris campaign was probably happy about it, since
the extra stuff from Trump was invariably ranting, or rant-adjacent.
Taylor Swift: No, Taylor Swift was not on stage. And yet, it's at least possible
that she'll be the biggest story of the night. Shortly after the debate ended, Swift posted this message to
Instagram:
Like many of you, I watched the debate tonight. If you haven't already, now is a great time to do your research on the
issues at hand and the stances these candidates take on the topics that matter to you the most. As a voter, I make sure
to watch and read everything I can about their proposed policies and plans for this country.
Recently I was made aware that AI of 'me' falsely endorsing Donald Trump's presidential run was posted to his site. It
really conjured up my fears around AI, and the dangers of spreading misinformation. It brought me to the conclusion that
I need to be very transparent about my actual plans for this election as a voter. The simplest way to combat
misinformation is with the truth.
I will be casting my vote for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz in the 2024 Presidential Election. I'm voting for @kamalaharris
because she fights for the rights and causes I believe need a warrior to champion them. I think she is a steady-handed,
gifted leader and I believe we can accomplish so much more in this country if we are led by calm and not chaos. I was so
heartened and impressed by her selection of running mate @timwalz, who has been standing up for LGBTQ+ rights, IVF, and
a woman's right to her own body for decades.
I've done my research, and I've made my choice. Your research is all yours to do, and the choice is yours to make. I
also want to say, especially to first time voters: Remember that in order to vote, you have to be registered! I also
find it's much easier to vote early. I'll link where to register and find early voting dates and info in my story.
With love and hope,
Taylor Swift Childless Cat Lady
In case you don't care to read it, the takeaways are: (1) Swift is endorsing Harris, calling her a "warrior," (2) Swift
says her mind was made up by Trump's abuse of AI (posting a fake picture of Swift) and by the debate, and (3) Swift
signed her missive as "Childless Cat Lady."
We don't know why Swift chose last night, of all nights, to make that announcement. Maybe she was trying to ride the
momentum of debate coverage. Maybe she was trying to bury it a little bit, so that right-leaning fans are not angered.
If she starts campaigning for Harris, or she doesn't, that will probably tell the tale. In any case, it is entirely
plausible that Swift alone could light a fire under some number of young, women voters. It's unlikely that the singer
can turn a Trump voter into a Harris voter, but she could turn an "I'm not going to vote" voter into a Harris voter.
Takeaways: All right. Now that we've got our thoughts written down, we'll take a look
at what various news outlets are saying. Excuse us; we'll be back in a moment.
OK, we are back. Here are five sets of takeaways from various sources:
It looks like we were indeed watching the same debate as everyone else. Well, except for the people at Fox, maybe.
Also, a couple of insta-polls were published last night (which, please be clear, are more like focus group results).
CNN
had a group of allegedly undecided voters in to watch the debate, and then asked them who won. They gave it to Harris,
63% to 37%. The Washington Postasked the same question
of a group of 25 swing-state voters. They gave the win to Harris, 92% to 8%.
Reader Comments: We've also heard from a number of readers already; here
are some of their comments (keep in mind that our readers, on the whole, skew pretty lefty and highly educated):
J.T. in Marietta, GA: Just an FYI: My Republican, Trump-supporting sister messaged my
conservative relatives, "Trump just blew the debate." So at least some within the bubble can face reality, even if it
won't change their votes.
A.H. in Newberg, OR: Debait? No, that is not a typo.
From the opening handshake to the bitter end comma-la owned the MAGA Maniac. The Trumpinator was more like Mr. Wilson
screaming at Dennis to get off his lawn! I don't think that scowl ever left his face. He was the "Donner"—a loud noise
rattling the rafters. She was the "Blitzen"—the sharp pointed riposte to the rumbling incoherent noise. The only break
he got was when they went to commercial. Almost as bad was wannabe VP "JV" in the immediate reaction on ABC afterwards.
It was a tough job to control the FORMER President, but I think Muir and Davis did a good job in a difficult
situation.
E.S. in Maine, NY: Just a quick comment on the blatant sexism of the so called
moderators. Time and time again Trump just started talking and they let him speak in response. The one time Harris tried
to respond they said no.
D.H. in Lisbon Falls, ME: Harris spanked the Orange Demon all night long... but, at
11:14, Taylor Swift's comments made him DOA.
H.S.W. in Ardmore, PA: Donald Trump got Swift-boated tonight.
C.K. (and friends) in Santa Fe, NM: I wanted to give an immediate "hot take" reaction to
the Harris/Trump debate before the pundits weigh in and an overall consensus narrative forms, just to compare notes with
the analysis in tomorrow's Electoral-Vote.com writeup and beyond.
For some context: I/we (DID is one of our neurodivergencies) am/are extremely liberal, but living with parents who
include a very conservative father. We tried to watch the Biden/Trump debate together back when that happened, but I
had to excuse myself 10 or 15 minutes in, because that whole trainwreck gave me a severe panic attack (the kind that
involved intense nausea and left us literally sick in bed for days recuperating afterward.) Dad, meanwhile, was up all
night that night watching just about every analysis program Fox had to offer, like he just wanted to keep celebrating
and partying with all their talking heads.
Tonight, I/we watched the Harris/Trump debate all the way through without issue, whereas Dad was the one who got up and
left very early in, ostensibly to focus on packing for an upcoming camping trip, but it was very obvious that he was
stomping around, slamming doors, etc.
That alone tells us all we need to know about how tonight went.
J.S. in St. Louis, MO: Starting this e-mail before final statements. But again it's the
bully taking more time than the rules allow (not surprising). I only wish the people in charge would actually abide by the rules.
I wonder what the actual time was that each candidate were allowed to talk with the mic on. It seems very skewed in favor of the
felon. That said, I think she killed it. Smart points, jabs and counter jabs.
B.W. in Los Angeles, CA: Trying my level best to be as objective as possible (and trying
to imagine myself as an undecided swing-state voter): I can't imagine either candidate accomplished anything
game-changing.
Yes, Trump said some outrageous things—but there is an approximately 0.0% chance that anyone who is still-undecided
between these two candidates has a strong opinion about Viktor Orbán.
The most likely reactions of undecided voters were, I suspect, tidily summed up by the two vice-presidential candidates
in their post-debate interviews: Walz described Trump as "old man yelling at cloud," and Vance remarked that Harris
"talks to you like you're stupid."
W.F. in Orlando, FL: You wrote, in your previous debate recap, that Biden didn't get the
memo in the first debate about both candidates being onscreen throughout the debate. Kamala Harris certainly got the
memo this time. Some of the looks she shot at Trump are classic and destined to go viral.
E.G.G.-C. in Syracuse, NY: I'm sorry, I'm an immigrant like those who "eat dogs" and
bring crime to the US... I didn't know...
We will undoubtedly have some more comments on Sunday.
So, there you have it. We tend to agree with the readers/commentators who say that this debate won't change the
trajectory of the election all by itself. But could it move 1% of voters? We think something like that is entirely
possible. Though, given the vagaries of polling, it would be very hard to know if that actually happened.
Note that we will have bingo results tomorrow. Those require a level of concentration that is not currently available
to be summoned. (Z)
This item appeared on www.electoral-vote.com. Read it Monday through Friday for political and election news,
Saturday for answers to reader's questions, and Sunday for letters from readers.
