To the extent that there was a winner in last night’s presidential debate it was Vice President Kamala Harris. It’s easier to pick the losers. Trump lost by being Trump and we all lost from a nearly content-free debate. Most of all ABC’s moderators lost. They did not cut off microphones when they should have, showed bias, and failed to take note of the complete absence of substantive responses.
I materially agree with the editors of the Wall Street Journal:
Donald Trump and Kamala Harris debated each other with the skill, knowledge and dignity befitting a great democracy on Tuesday—well, at least they appeared on stage together. Americans were able to see the candidates their two parties have bequeathed for President, for better or (mostly) worse.
Ms. Harris, less well known than the former President, had the most to gain and our guess is she helped herself. She clearly won the debate, though not because she made a powerful case for her vision or the record of the last four years. Though she kept talking about her “plan” for the economy, she largely sailed along on the same unspecific promises about “the future” that she has since Democrats made her the nominee.
She won the debate because she came in with a strategy to taunt and goad Mr. Trump into diving down rabbit holes of personal grievance and vanity that left her policies and history largely untouched. He always takes the bait, and Ms. Harris set the trap so he spent much of the debate talking about the past, or about Joe Biden, or about immigrants eating pets, but not how he’d improve the lives of Americans in the next four years.
The Vice President had help from the ABC News moderators, who were clearly on her side. They fact-checked only Mr. Trump, several times, though Ms. Harris offered numerous whoppers—on Mr. Trump’s alleged support for Project 2025, Mr. Trump’s views on in-vitro fertilization, and that no American troops are in a combat zone overseas.
Tell that last one to the Americans killed by Iranian proxies in Jordan this year or the U.S. Navy commanders tasked with intercepting Houthi missiles in the Red Sea.
If that so-called debate presages what we have to expect from the next 50 some-odd days of the campaign, the Harris campaign will be one of aspirations alone. Perhaps that will be good enough to prevail.
The editors conclude:
Flush with its candidate’s success, the Harris campaign on Tuesday night called for a second debate in October. But don’t expect her to sit for any in-depth interviews. That would be risky. This was the only scheduled debate between Ms. Harris and Mr. Trump, and given what we saw Tuesday, the nation will be grateful if it is the last.
Amen.
My observation is there’s very few voters who will decide based on Ms. Harris beating Mr Trump in a debate by baiting him (as the WSJ news page described it). On the other hand, there are voters who don’t know her and wanted to see her temperament, or her plans as PD Shaw described. To the extent that was overshadowed by everything else that happened, its a lost opportunity.
But I don’t know what Harris’s campaign’s “theory” of this election is. Maybe it is they think the best way to win is to stay an enigma.
Is there a reason for not criticizing Trump for not having plans? Seems pretty clear most stuff with him is transactional and based upon who is stroking his ego. For example, he was against TVs until Elon started supporting him. The most specific plans were in Project 2025 but he has been trying to walk away from that even though the people who wrote it were largely his advisors.
Just one other critique. They ought to try to understand the concept of combat zone. Jordan gets about 10%-15% of its income from tourism with over 100,000 US citizens per year going there. Doesnt sound like a combat zone to me. An assassination somewhere doesn’t make it a combat zone. Did the WSJ call the UK a combat zone when Russia poisoned a couple of people?
Steve
According to the IRS, Jordan is a combat zone, also for combat pay purposes, Jordan is a combat zone.
I don’t see how the number of tourists relates to whether something is a combat zone. Pre-Taliban takeover, Afghanistan also had US visitors / tourists — but everyone agreed that was a combat zone. Israel gets 800K visitors a year from the US, I argue it currently is a combat zone.
Jordan is designated a combat zone due to its proximity to Afghanistan and providing support to Afghanistan. Its a way to provide more pay to troops deployed in that area, its not due to there actually being combat in that area that we are engaged in.
https://www.dfas.mil/militarymembers/payentitlements/Pay-Tables/CZ2/
Steve
If its arguing that Ms. Harris is correct they aren’t any “US soldiers” in a combat zone; its a losing argument.
Maybe the government hasn’t updated the risk tables that soldiers in Jordan are at risk due to Iran or its proxies; but 3 US soldiers who were killed in a drone attack in Jan; there’s no reason to doubt it wasn’t “combat” or “active hostilities” as most people conceive of it.
Combat zones can change in a single day. If a Russian sub attacked a US base in the UK; the UK would be a combat zone too.
The real story about the debate is that a small handful of Democrat elite (three?) nullified 14 million primary voters and 4,000 delegates to appoint Harris as the nominee. This is the biggest political story since the assassination of JFK.
It has been declared a combat zone since 2001. A designation made for pay purposes and not because there was actual combat in that country. Why isn’t the US a combat zone since we were attacked on 9/11? More US soldiers were killed at Fort Hood than in Jordan since then. Anyway, I have to concede that the IRS and DoD are calling Jordan a combat zone, even if is just for the purpose of how people are paid.
Steve
If I recall what happened immediately after 9/11; we did treat the US as a combat zone. Arguably at some point in the years and now decades after, the threat from Al Queda has reduced and we don’t act like the US homeland is in active hostilities.
The attack in Jordan was this year, and from what I can tell, the threat has not decreased. We should poll the soldiers and commanders there whether they think they are in a combat zone. If its crazy the designation is from 2001; well that is what being involved in a “forever war” and in a region where wars are endemic is like.
The problem is that the term becomes meaningless when applied too broadly. Is Eastern Russia really a combat zone? Is essentially all of Europe a combat zone because some terrorists have killed some people in them? Using such a broad definition means much of the world is a combat zone when in fact there isn’t combat going on in those places.
The even worse problem that follows if that politicians can then restrict liberties or engage in policies based on the false belief that the country is a combat zone.
Steve
No, Eastern Russia (as in East of Moscow) is not a combat zone, but Western Russia is. Ukraine has been regularly attacking Western Russia using drones — part of their deep strike attacks.
Jordan isn’t Germany.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_U.S._bases_in_Iraq,_Jordan,_and_Syria_during_the_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war
There’s been 16 attacks in the past year on US bases in Iraq, Syria, Jordan.
I didn’t make it past five minutes or so. I find them both unpleasant personalities, but in Harris’ defense it comes across as manufactured.
Curious, I’m not interested in plans; that’s how Democrats talk among themselves in the Primaries. Most of those types of plans are meaningless unless one can expect Congressional support.
Well, Bob s made the most important point: a coup. Disregarded by all the “ my precious democracy” types.
As far as Jordan. What dance does one do on the head of a pin?
And yes, we all lost. But look in the mirror people.