A different debate from a different Democrat

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 12/09/2024 (568 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

At the very least, Tuesday’s U.S. presidential debate was a less morbid outing than its predecessor.

When former president Donald Trump and his opponent, Vice-President Kamala Harris, took to the stage at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, it was an opportunity to see how invigorated the Democratic campaign really was after President Joe Biden’s miserable performance against Trump earlier this year, before Biden finally decided to leave the race.

On that score, Harris fared much better. Her message, stated emphatically and repeatedly, was that now is the time to move the country forward, rather than return to the Trump era. She slapped away Trump’s attempts to equate her with Biden, gesturing toward herself and declaring, “Clearly, I am not Joe Biden,” and stating she offers “a new generation” of leadership.

Critics of Harris’s performance say she failed to offer many specifics on her plans, which is not inaccurate. Harris took strong positions on hot-button issues, coming out in support of restoring abortion rights, and taking a firm stance on border security, but the fine print was lacking. However, even the few bullet points Harris had to offer were better than the “concepts of a plan” Trump claimed to have.

It is difficult to blame Harris entirely for this. For one, a televised debate may theoretically be the place to give such details, but between time limits and the reality of a back-and-forth between opposing sides, one candidate rarely gets much time to wax on about exactly what they’ll do and how. And in the case of this specific debate, she was up against someone with a habit of dragging down the level of discourse wherever he goes.

What can be said about Trump’s performance? As we’ve said in this space before, Trump has the advantage of having subterranean expectations to meet; he does not have to perform well for his loyalists to continue backing him. Even so, it is astonishing to see how susceptible Trump is to whatever odd notion has lately popped up in far-right social media.

He repeated appalling claims: that a former West Virginia governor said the state would “decide what to do with the baby” after birth (“in other words, we’ll execute the baby”); that Harris wants transgender surgeries performed on illegal immigrants in prisons; and that immigrants are cooking and eating people’s pets. Moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis were forced to correct him live on-air more than once.

Harris was often visibly amused, and at one point seemed to deliberately throw Trump off course with a pointed reference to dwindling attendance at his rallies, which predictably sent Trump on a tangent defending his popularity.

All in all it seemed like a good night for Harris — especially given the convenient timing of global megastar Taylor Swift endorsing her right after the debate, which likely did more to boost her prospects than any answer she gave on Tuesday. But in all her evident self-satisfaction, Harris risks making the same mistake as Hillary Clinton, who also trounced Trump in debates only to lose on the big day. This debate wasn’t about whether Harris could make Trump look bad — he doesn’t need the help — it was about whether she could convert undecided voters (because somehow, there are some) with her vision.

That vision is bright, but not yet clear. So it would behoove Harris and her team to do away with laughing Trump off for now, and get back to the work of proving why it should be her in the White House, and not him, as substantively as possible.