Dem
49
GOP
51
Politico is a fairly neutral news site. It doesn't lean either way and is not afflicted with "bothsidesism," like The New York Times. Here are its headlines yesterday morning, post debate:
There were no stories there about the good news for Donald Trump, much less about how Trump won.
Although there were many stories there, some themes were repeated in all of them. First, Kamala Harris held her own, even on topics that should have been slam dunks for Trump, like the economy, the border, Gaza, and Afghanistan.
Second, Harris had a strategy and executed it perfectly. She answered some of the questions clearly (like the one on abortion), but mostly she baited Trump by calling him weak in various forms. We were surprised she didn't bring up Stormy Daniels' remark about the worst 90 seconds of her life. That would have made his head explode. He took the bait every time, even though his handlers and Republican officials in public warned him not to take it. It's like telling a starving dog not to eat the big juicy hamburger in front of him because you told him it is rotting and not good for him. The problem with Trump's taking the bait all the time is that it focused on subjects where he is, well, weak. He needed to have the discussion to be about her weaknesses, not his. John Harris, Politico's founding editor, wrote: "On countless occasions, he did the opposite of what any conventional operative would tell him to do. ... While Harris was coached up to her eyeballs, Trump was improvisational to the point of incontinence." Karen Dunn knows her stuff.
Third, Harris did a masterful act of jiu jitsu. She was the semi-incumbent and he was the challenger, but she flipped that and kept acting like she was the change candidate and he was for more of the same old stuff. That's not easy to pull off, but she did it well.
Fourth, by being constantly on the attack and standing up to a bully, she (implicitly) made the case that she could stand up to international bullies, like Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, and Kim Jong-Un. Women have pulled that off before (think: Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi, and Golda Meir), but for America, a tough woman is something new. Hillary Clinton didn't sell that so well.
Trump also made some unforced errors. Claiming that immigrants are going to eat your dog is probably going to make an appearance in a Harris commercial entitled "Weird." Also, see the debate item we have planned for tomorrow.
Foreign diplomats were relieved that Harris did so well. One European diplomat told Politico that Harris was "composed, authoritative, and presidential." Another said: "She even managed to laugh at him." Others said she was her own woman (i.e., not warmed-over Biden). They liked what they saw.
Other more-or-less neutral outlets were similar. How about The Hill, which mixes summaries of stories from other publications with original reporting but has right-wing opinion writers? Here were its headlines in the morning after the debate:
Even a somewhat right-wing publication couldn't spin it for Trump. Trump's remark about Taylor Swift is telling about how he sees the world: What she did could cost her money. He sees doing something that could cost you money as the dumbest thing a person could possibly do. Life is about making the most money possible. The presidency is the biggest grift ever. How could that childless cat lady do something that she thinks is morally right if it might cost her money? What a moron. Doesn't she know that Republicans also buy shoes? Oh wait, that was some guy who plays basketball. We forget who.
The ultimate test is how Fox handled this on its website:
The fact-checking clearly got to Trump's apologists. Maybe they didn't fact-check Harris because she didn't emit a continuous stream of lies. They want the media to give Trump an open channel to lie continuously and not have anyone challenge him.
After the debate, Trump rushed to the spin room. That is exceedingly rare. Candidates like to be above that and have surrogates do the spinning. There are plenty of Republican senators who can spin better than Rumpelstiltskin (although they can't necessarily produce gold; for that, they need help from the Egyptians). Trump could have left the spinning to them. But he clearly sensed that he had lost and felt that he needed to be there personally to save the day. Reporters wanted to know more about immigrants eating pets and how he felt about Taylor Swift endorsing Harris. In the chaos of the spin room, at first nobody even paid attention to Trump, Finally, he said it was his best debate ever:
The Bulwark's Tim Miller was there and kept yelling at him: "Why wouldn't you even look at her?" Trump heard it and immediately looked for more friendly turf. Miller said that Trump's aides were ashen because there is no job in politics worse than being the spinner for a loser (which Miller, an anti-Trump Republican operative, has been). Miller saw Trump's former spokesman Tim Murtaugh (whom he knows) talking to Byron York, a writer for the (right-wing) Washington Examiner. Miller tried to cheer up Murtaugh by saying: "Byron will write you something good." York grunted: "Fu** you." Miller asked Corey Lewandowski what Trump's best answer was. Lewandowski said: "There were so many answers" and trotted off. Miller also asked David Bossie and he said: "That's a good question." When Miller found Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who (like Miller) was an anti-Trumper in 2016, Graham said Trump's performance was a "disaster," and that "his debate team should be fired." A few minutes later, Miller saw Graham posing for a photo with Trump and reiterating his proud support for Trump. Miller is gay, is married to a man, and is quite open about it. It's quite liberating. He also encountered Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA), who was grinning from ear to ear, and said: "Now he knows her name: Kah-muh-lah. Kah-muh-lah." We have to give Newsom credit for being a good sport. If Harris wins, he can't run for president until 2032, by which time he will be long out of office and possibly forgotten.
Republicans had a conniption over the debate. They clearly knew Trump blew it. They couldn't even lie with a straight face. So they had to find a scapegoat. They decided on the moderators. They hated the moderators fact-checking Trump five times and not fact-checking Harris at all. Maybe that was because Trump lied continuously and Harris didn't. They think it is weird. Donald Trump Jr. tweeted: "Weird how the hack moderators ... are only 'Fact checking' Trump and allowing Kamala to lie nonstop. The Fake News is the enemy of the people." The line about the "enemy of the people" is one of the all-time greatest hits in every dictatorship in history. Tulsi Gabbard wrote: "This debate is three vs. one," a line she got from Trump, who said the same thing to Sean Hannity earlier. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) called Muir and Davis' performance "an embarrassment to journalism." Meghan McCain said: "I don't know what the hell this is but these moderators are doing the American people a grave disservice." If we may adapt the old lawyer's line for debate performance: "If you won on substance, hammer on substance. If you won on style, hammer on style. If you didn't win on either, hammer the moderators."
Fundamentally, Trump's strategy is to lie about everything on the assumption that his base doesn't realize that he is lying. When a neutral moderator calls him out, Trump goes bonkers because that upsets his whole strategy.
Will there be another debate? Harris' campaign manager has already asked for one. That shows her level of confidence. Trump didn't reply to the challenge. That shows what he is thinking.
But remember, winning a debate does not mean also winning an election. Trump will probably not lose any supporters as a result of a poor debate performance. The big question is whether Harris will gain any. That we won't know for a while.
Nevertheless, The Washington Post ran a focus group with 25 undecided swing state voters. They polled the group before and after the debate. Here are the results, with one voter abstaining after the debate:
The results are clear. Harris got five hard yes votes and a total of 15 hard votes plus probable votes after the debate, vs. no hard yes votes and 12 probable votes before the debate. Trump lost four probable votes and didn't pick up any hard votes. All in all, a win for Harris. (V)