2 Comments

Harris's debate staff did a brilliant job of training her to tweak Trump's weird trigger points: get him distracted into talking about the size of his....crowds; how much money he started with; cat-eating in Ohio; whether he thinks he won the 2020 election, etc.

I felt like I was watching the "Caine Mutiny" or "A Few Good Men," just waiting for him to blurt out something about strawberries or "you're damned right, I ordered the code red." I didn't have to wait long: "Yes I won the election!" Oh boy.

I think Harris has a lot of very dangerous policy ideas (e.g. price & rent controls), but she was Tom Cruise and Trump was Jack Nicholson tonight.

Expand full comment

I too thought the debate went poorly but for different reasons. Trump displayed a disjointed performance on defending his policies while Harris was polished in her gauzy advocacy of vague policies of no substance. The moderators however displayed such rank animosity toward Trump, repeatedly and sometimes incorrectly fact checking his statements. For Harris they not once fact checked her statements although many were previously and elsewhere disproven. Admittedly it was hardy to fact check Harris as most of her statements were not explaining her policies but espousing vague emotional platitudes. Moderators should either equally fact check both debaters or fact check neither of them. Debaters should be free to make any statements they wish and it’s the opponent’s job to counter them. But I was surprised that a post-debate Reuters poll of their Independent voters showed a plurality favoring Trump despite most viewers declaring Harris the debate winner. Perhaps debates have just lost their influence over such highly polarized voting groups today. And we just havee no information yet whether any of this sturm und drang will influence the election outcome in any significant way.

Expand full comment