::: Trump v. Harris Debate Thread, Tue. at 9pm on ABC

Probably the most accurate write up of Tuesday Night I have seen, without the complaints about the moderators:

But did Harris really accomplish what she needed? This is where the conventional wisdom may be veering off course. There’s a difference between what a candidate or a group wants and what it needs. What Harris and her supporters seemingly wanted was a technically adept evisceration of Trump. This echoes the desires of the highly educated moderate-to-liberal class of voters – which includes a lot of journalists – that most desperately wants Trump to be defeated. Harris delivered for them in spades. It’s no surprise that this class is ecstatic.

But what did she need? The pre-debate polls were close and had moved against her in recent days. Frankly, to have received the adulatory media she received over the six weeks after Biden dropped out and yet only be up a point or two in national polling isn’t a great sign. In short, she needed to either convince undecided voters to break her way or to win over some soft Trump supporters.

Did anything transpire on the debate stage that might have assisted this? We might start by asking ourselves: What did anyone, undecided or otherwise, learn about Trump last night? That he’s erratic? That he is bombastic and doesn’t always know what he’s talking about? That he can be a real jerk?


Did Harris Really Get the Debate She Needed?

 

The media and Dems keep falling into the same trap with Trump. The debates become more about Trump than they do a contrast of ideas. This in turn elevates Trump, because all eyes are on him and the voters don't get any specifics from the other side. This is where negative campaigning can work against a candidate. People are left thinking "ok she is very good at saying mean things about Trump, but what did she say that makes me feel better about my future under a Harris administration?" She ducked the very first question, that she had to have known was coming. In the end, she looks weak to many voters, because she'd rather say mean things about Trump than talk about her record and her ideas. It was profoundly dumb for Harris to mention Trump's sentencing in NY, which has been delayed twice now. His polling numbers edged upward with every indictment. They think they're going to convince people Trump is a bad person. They end up making him into a martyr-like figure.

 

That's not what I said, was it? But it sounds like my words hit close to home with you. Negative campaigning can be a useful tool, but it can't be your entire strategy. Not to mention negative campaigning whilst copying and pasting several key policy ideas from the target isn't nearly as effective as negative campaigning with a very distinct and thorough platform of your own. Negative campaigning is also much harder to do with a known quantity candidate than it is a fresh face. We already knew Trump is a jerk. Reminding us ten million times and doing everything possible to avoid talking about your own platform isn't what we want to hear.

 

That is exactly what China is doing when they pay the Trump tariffs that Biden-Harris kept in place. That money goes directly to the U.S. Treasury. Do you not understand how tariffs work?

 

That's your opinion, but I must say the irony runs deep with you, as most of Kamala's very few proposals since she was gifted the nomination have been ideas she stole from guess who.