That was soooooooooo much different than what we witnessed in the first debate.
So. Much. Different.
Yet, why does it still feel like not much was impacted?
Overall, I stepped away from this debate with the overarching theme that Kamala Harris did what she needed to do. And that was not engage in a pity back-and-forth with Trump who wants to muddy the waters of any debate or discourse, force him to bring something new to the table and force him to get into a policy discussion beyond the usual surface sayings and fire-alarm narratives.
She did that.
For Trump. He has his voters. He is not losing them. But I thought Trump didn't do enough to interest those voters who have soured on him as well as those who are not yet sold on Kamala (this administration, or even the Democratic Party).
We saw the same from Trump. No need to answer questions. Dictate the narrative with what you want. Reply with emotion. Evade policy discussion. And you know, be Trump.
Was there a winner? In a traditional debate for competition - surely Trump did himself in - the guy never answers any questions directly. A no-no in that style of debate.
For this political space - I think the winners were expected Kamala voters who can come away feeling a bit more sure of their foray for her. Slight winners were Independent voters who got a look into both candidates with more detail. And the biggest winner of all, undecided voters. While I'm not sure they got much to solidify a decision (not sure what they need at this point), they got more than what we saw back in June.
Here are some other quick thoughts on this debate:
- Trump never - not once - called Kamala Harris by her name. He used a lot of pronouns - she (referring to Kamala) and them (referring to her as the representative for the Democrats). I'm not sure if that was trying to be disrespectful, or what stayed with me the whole night, he truly is unable to pronounce her name.
- Kamala's mannerisms and facial expressions - especially early - felt a bit forced in my opinion. There were some truly genuine reactions, like her now famous pause in referring to "this...former President" when discussing Trump's invitation to common terrorists to Camp David. She's best when she can react that way...it's genuinely how many feel in regards to Trump as a person and candidate. She should run with it.
With that said, I can see why Kamala rarely does interviews. She's awkward at times. Trump's base eats anything he cooks. Kamala doesn't have that privelege. It's a much higher bar to reach, and a broader audience to please.
- Kamala's well-timed jabs to get under Trump's skin were predictable and hilarious. The comments about his rallies drove him out of his shoes! And really, watching him become unhinged and passionate about the size of his rallies, more than some of the topics in the early parts of the debates, was a W for her.
The line of "You were fired by 81 million people" was awesome. Whoever on her team wrote that, deserves a raise. She definitely had that stocked and ready to go.
- I'm still amazed that nine years into the MAGA movement, Trump can still evade questions, and his supporters will hear an answer. It's the greatest magic trick in the history of politics.
But really, does he ever answer a question?
- The "we have concepts" phrase when talking about a replacement for the Affordable Healthcare Act was hard to take in.
- The abortion discussion was also tough to listen to. The pathos evoked by Kamala in her responses really brought the topic beyond just the black and white of what is tossed around in the media. However, even within the discussion, both candidates were uncommitted to what they stood for and held onto extremes regarding the topic.
- Some of the responses by moderator Linsey Davis really had me laughing out loud. I felt like I was watching a Saturday Night Live skit at times.
- Speaking of fact-checking, am I the only one who is okay with a simple graphic on the screen? Yes, give me the gameshow-style approach! We've gone the distance with these debates in removing the crowds, muting microphones, and other gimmicks to ensure we get substance and discourse. Now, give us the truth.
Don't interrupt or cut off the candidates. Just have blurbs or graphics at the bottom correcting or confirming the candidate's comments. A little delay is fine. But truth is needed.
And oh yeah - how about a post-debate fact-check report - similar to the NBA's referee report? Just an idea. Gives us the goods, but most importantly, again, the truth.
While I'm rolling on ways to improve these debates, I propose the debates are simplified to one to two topics for 90 minutes to allow a deeper dive into policy and what each candidate would do. And then a rapid-fire round for thirty minutes.
Okay, I'm done now.
- Finally, as mentioned above, I don't see this debate having much impact. I've said it from the moment Biden threw in the towel, this race is about pro-Trump and anti-Trump. Trump has his voters. The question for this election will be whether Kamala Harris and Democrats drum up enough voters who are undecided, unmoved, and unsatisfied (with the current administration) to match the MAGA energy for redemption.
Most people know who they are voting for at this point. I genuinely feel this Presidency will be determined by the seven swing states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Yes, I know this isn't news - but I doubt any of the moments from this debate will have an impact and flip voters.
Who knows...
Either way, I don't see there being another debate (there is no way Trump wants another one after tonight - just my prediction).
Be sure to register. Please vote. God Bless America.