A Frustrating Non-Debate Debate
It Was A Rorschach Test And Nothing More Than That
The debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris was mostly formulaic and uninspiring. Throughout it was frustrating.
What it was not was revelatory.
Corporate media predictably said Harris was on topic and Trump was lying.
The vice president had prepared extensively for their debate, and peppered nearly every answer with a comment designed to enrage the former president. She told Trump that world leaders were laughing at him, and military leaders called him a “disgrace.” She called Trump “weak” and “wrong.” She said Trump was fired by 81 million voters – the number that voted for President Joe Biden in 2020.
“Clearly, he’s having a very difficult time processing that,” she said.
Trump was often ouhttps://archive.ph/Wj8Myt of control. He loudly and repeatedly insisted that a whole host of falsehoods were true. The former president repeated lies about widespread fraud in the 2020 election. He parroted a conspiracy theory about immigrants eating pets, and lied about Democrats supporting abortions after babies are born – which is murder, and illegal everywhere.
Alternative media’s take can best be assessed by looking at Breitbart’s main page just after the debate ended.
Ultimately, what you saw in the debate depended almost entirely on that preconceptions and biases you had going into the debate. What I said about Donald Trump and Joe Biden this time last year still holds true for Donald Trump and Kamala Harris: What you see and hear depends on your particular opinions and biases.
Corporate media saw Donald Trump ranting and raving.
Alternate media saw Kamala Harris stuck with canned responses.
Independent voters probably saw a debate with moderators and candidates who were not truly focused on discussing issues.
Donald Trump did come across as angry. He comes across as angry even in his pressers. He has reasons to be angry—there was a raw and even poignant truth being spoken when he said that he probably almost took a bullet in the head because of what Kamala Harris and Joe Biden have said about him.
Kamala Harris did sound very rehearsed. Aside from her responses on abortion, much of what she said followed a formula: talk about how she has a plan, get the words “opportunity economy” in, and then belittle Donald Trump. However, her harping on how so many supposed “experts”—from economists to generals—panned Donald Trump as not being presidential timber showed she doesn’t grasp an important aspect of a large portion of Trump’s base: they are no longer impressed by the notional elites and their opinions. If all Kamala Harris has is the notional support of “experts”, she’s not got anything that impresses fully one-half of the American electorate.
Nowhere did this come across more clearly than when discussing Ukraine. Even the moderators were more focused on talking about Ukraine “winning” that war, and none of them picked up on Trump’s focus on peace—he was quite clear about his desire that the war in Ukraine be ended and the killing stopped. His rebuttal to Harris that if he had been in the Oval Office 300,000 Russian troops would not have died went over her head and over the moderators heads.
For me, the war in Ukraine was a fitting metaphor for the debate: Trump and Harris bashed each other relentlessly, egged on by the moderators, and nothing really changed for all the venom and vitriol on display.
Kamala Harris is still to me the candidate who does not grasp the gravity of the moment or even the ramifications of what she says. Like so many Democratic politicians—and even Republican ones—she thinks leadership is standing haughtily in the Oval Office giving orders.
Donald Trump is still to me the candidate who is personally annoying but manages to articulate awkward truths: hyperinflation did occur while Harris was in office, not Donald Trump. The withdrawal in Afghanistan was a discomobulated mess and may very well have emboldened Putin to try his luck in Ukraine (and Trump’s wry observation that Putin massing troops on Ukraine’s border was a Putin negotiating tactic is has a certain merit). Prices on just about everything have risen in Harris’ “opportunity economy”. The (Biden-)Harris Administration has weaponized the levers of government power to attack political opponents.
The moderators to me are still largely unimaginative stock characters straight from central casting who were even more scripted and more tied to pre-written questions and talking points than Kamala Harris. There were no insightful questions and no thoughtful explorations of issues. The moderators were ticking off a series of checkboxes as they posed their debate questions.
Ultimately, no minds were changed. I highly doubt any voters changed their preference for either candidate. I highly doubt anyone on either side gained any new understanding or appreciation for the concerns of the other side.
Who won the debate? No one. Donald Trump did not win. Kamala Harris did not win. The moderators did not win. The American electorate who soon have to start casting their votes absolutely did not win.
Yes, the debate was frustrating to watch. Harris told blatant lies, yet was unchallenged by the useless moderators. Trump missed opportunities. I’ll bet hoards of viewers checked out early.
Ultimately, as you’ve said, Peter, no minds were changed. This might be the best result of the debate for Trump, as nominally-Democratic voters may grow complacent about the certainty of Kamala winning, and thus not bother to vote.
Trump supporters will still make the effort.
I still hope that ‘the truth will out’ in time. Harris is likely to bungle her campaign efforts during the remaining days before the election, and horrify many voters with her true colors. Meanwhile, Trump has a long history of successfully persuading people. This game is a long way from over!
Good and thorough analysis.