Some Late Debate Thoughts

A few delayed reactions to Trump v. Harris

At this point probably all that need be said about last week’s presidential debate already has been, but in case you’ve been dying to know what I thought about the contest, here are some assorted thoughts that have been rattling around in my head since the candidates faced off:

• Conventional wisdom is that presidential debates don’t matter much, and normally that’s true. I think this one was probably an exception—and any follow-up debate would similarly have the potential to move the needle—for a couple reasons. Debates are really for the benefit of low-information voters. Anyone who follows politics seriously has long since made their choice between two such starkly contrasting candidates. And while polls suggest that at this point basically no voters believe they need more information about Donald Trump, there’s a sizable chunk who say they still need to learn more about Harris. She has not been a particularly high-profile vice president, and dropped out of the primaries early last time around, so for many voters who don’t spend their free hours glued to C-SPAN, she may still be something of a cipher, and indeed, the debates may be the first time they’ve heard her speak at any length. Trump, on the other hand, seems to be regarded more favorably by low-info voters the less they see and hear of him. He cannot resist leaning into lurid narratives—like bizarre racist fantasies about migrants eating pets—that thrill his most devoted followers and sound insane to normal people.

• Trump, notwithstanding his predictable and too-vigorous protestations to the contrary, is well aware that he lost by a wide margin. In the previous debate, when everyone agrees he actually outperformed Joe Biden—low a bar though that was—he was champing at the bit for not just one rematch but several. After being soundly trounced by Harris, he suddenly decided that his “victory” was so decisive there was no reason to give Harris a second opportunity. Moreover, it’s gnawing at him. More than a week after the debate, he was rambling on Truth Social about how now, finally “everyone” agreed that he had won the debate. There was no sourcing for this claim, because of course, all the polling shows precisely the opposite, and even among Republican hacks only the absolute hackiest are pretending he did well.

• Partly for this reason, there’s a decent chance he can be baited into reversing himself and consenting to another bout. If Harris hammers the talking point that he’s a coward afraid to face her and be humiliated again I think it’s likely his fragile ego will compel him to prove the charge wrong over the advice of his consiglieri. Moreover, it’s always the candidate who’s trailing who needs to do something to shake up the race and change its trajectory. If Harris continues leading in swing state polls, even his advisors may decide it’s worth the risk, though for the reasons sketched above, I think it’s exceedingly unlikely any rematch would be to Trump’s benefit.

• If there is a rematch, there are a number of ways Harris could improve on a strong but not spectacular performance. If you’ve ever done a media training, you’ve probably heard the old saw: “Don’t answer the question you were asked; answer the question you wish they’d asked.” Often that’s not bad advice, but for Harris I think it was a misstep. In post-debate interviews with voters, several noticed that she rather conspicuously dodged directly answering a few questions. That’s a huge missed opportunity to set up a forceful contrast with Trump, who of course rambles about his same handful of idées fixes in response to every question, however irrelevant they might be. Even if that makes the answers a little less polished, falling back on prepared talking points surrenders the chance to establish a memorable distinction between Trump’s dodging and her own willingness to tackle thorny questions directly.

• Often the moderators were more forceful in countering Trump’s fabrications than Harris herself was. In one sense, that’s probably to her benefit: The correction may seem more credible to viewers coming from a reporter than from Trump’s opponent. But of course, Trump told a lot more lies than the small handful the moderators addressed—they’d have been interjecting every five seconds if they attempted to note every false claim. Often Harris seemed content to let an amused and incredulous expression do the work, which is probably more efficient than wasting all your time on a point by point fact check. But, again, debates matter for low-information voters—voters who might not recognize as lies assertions that, for political junkies, are obvious howlers. And unfortunately, when moderators correct only a few of the most egregious falsehoods, is possible some of those voters will incorrectly infer that the statements they failed to correct are therefore true. Harris could find a happy medium by having a sort of recurring refrain, encouraging viewers to check for themselves rather than debunking in detail: “Another alternative fact from Planet Trump. It’s not true; don’t take my word for it—look it up.”

• Tariffs are essentially Trump’s only real economic policy idea, and Harris was somewhat hobbled in her ability to respond as strongly as one might like to his lies on this score because of the Biden administration’s failure to reverse most of the Trump tariffs. The forceful response would be: “Look, Trump is either lying to you about how tariffs work, or he somehow still doesn’t understand himself. They are not paid by foreign countries; they are a tax on American consumers. This is not controversial or disputed; look it up. They raise prices, and they’re a drag on the economy.” Of course, the obvious response is one Trump himself made: “Then why didn’t you get rid of them?” I think Harris’ strongest move here would simply be to distance herself from Biden, who is after all pretty unpopular anyway. This would be an easy place to not merely stake out the economically correct position, but also to establish herself as a distinct candidate with her own distinct policy ideas, and not merely—as the Trump campaign is so eager to portray her—Biden 2.0.