Debates, politics and decisions already made

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 17/09/2024 (716 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

I wouldn’t want to debate her, either.

Former U.S. president Donald Trump made a smart move, or his advisers did anyways, when he backed away from committing to any further debates with his opponent, Kamala Harris.

He clearly lost more than he gained during the Sept. 10 debate, especially when he took the bait and let her get under his skin with her taunts about the size of his rallies (one of his apparent hangups), which then led to some of the most cringe-worthy, ridiculous moments of hilarity a presidential debate has likely ever seen. For those of you who missed it, Trump segued from defending the size of his rallies, saying they are some of the biggest any presidential candidate has ever yielded, to then accusing immigrants in Springfield, Ohio of eating cats and dogs.

As an aside, what is it with the Trump-JD Vance duo and their weird statements and bizarre beliefs about people and their pets? First, Vance goes viral over his “childless cat ladies” comment that unleashed a fury of anger from women around the nation and even raised the ire of Taylor Swift, who later endorsed Harris.

But if Vance started what is now called the “cat lady” movement, with a backlash of mostly female voters using it as a war cry to vote for Harris, Trump has undoubtedly one-upped him. While hard to see it as anything except ridiculous, Trump’s assertion in front of 67 million viewers that America has “gone to hell” because of too many immigrants who are now eating people’s pets, is some of the most damaging, inflammatory, and baseless rhetoric I’ve ever heard.

Unfortunately, it also has real-world consequences. The mayor of Springfield was quick to rebut Trump’s statement that immigrants are “eating the pets of the people that live there,” yet undoubtedly harm was done, including a bomb threat that may be linked to that wild assertion.

All that to say, pundits and pollsters almost unanimously agree Harris won the debate. She appeared mostly poised, equipped with facts on policy, and offered relevant information about where she stands and what she would do if elected president. Sure, she side-stepped some answers and tippy-toed around her stance on fracking, but once the debate was over, she still raked in $47 million in donations and was declared a winner. It came as no surprise when, two days later, Trump announced he’d participate in no more debates.

It was a good call, as frontrunners rarely have anything to gain from debates, especially those with known brands like Trump’s. Most political advisers want their leading candidates to avoid them whenever possible because they rarely have an impact on voter’s preferences anyway and do little to sway the outcome of an election.

That’s because most people who watch debates are already decided voters. If anything, viewers are looking for confirmation of their bias towards their preferred candidate. The risk then far outweighs the reward, unless the candidate is a stellar debater who never loses his or her cool or makes eyebrow-raising comments.

Harris, on the other hand, had more to gain than lose. Her performance helped bring in a lot of donations and she shined in ways that further wooed her decided voters.

But how much impact will the debate have on the overall election?

Likely not much, as Harris probably didn’t gain even an ounce of support from any of Trump’s voters.

As someone who happened to be in the state of Montana and watched the debate in a public venue, I can tell you I didn’t witness any support growing for Harris. In fact, the snickering and guffaws from the crowd only seemed to get louder as she racked up wins against Trump or spoke about “her plan” for growing the economy. Sure, my sample size was small in this decidedly Republican state, but the numerous “Trump Nation” flags continued to wave as ceremoniously after the debate as before, while I saw nary a “Childless Cat Lady for Kamala” T-shirt on sale.

As the U.S. becomes even more polarized, debates are going to have even less influence on the outcome of elections. Not having any more presidential debates in the lead-up to November may reduce the number of memes and punchlines in late-night talk shows but will likely have no other impact. It’s all the other things that will happen between now and then that will determine who the next president of the United States will be.

Rochelle Squires is a recovering politician after 7 1/2 years in the Manitoba legislature. She is a political and social commentator whose column appears Tuesdays. rochelle@rochellesquires.ca