Listen To This Story

In our debate preview, we said that, in order to prevail, Donald Trump would have to appear sane and Kamala Harris in control. So, how did they do?

For Trump, not coming across as a ranting loon was always going to be a high bar, and he predictably failed to clear it on Tuesday night. Sure, his supporters will claim that the former president did an amazing job, but it’s hard to believe that non-MAGA voters, even those who did not have access to real-time fact checking and may not have realized how much he lied, watched his performance and felt that Trump was anything but an angry old man living in the past and airing grievances.

Harris, on the other hand, had a real chance to present herself to the American people as somebody completely different and authentic — as someone with a plan.

To be fair, she did come with a plan; it just wasn’t a blueprint for how to change America. Instead, it was a strategy intended to throw Trump off his “game” (if that’s what you want to call it), and, too many times, she pursued it to a fault.

Yes, Harris succeeded in rattling the former president many times, and she baited him into saying insane stuff.

However, Trump was always going to talk about Haitians in Ohio eating cats, how the 2020 election was stolen, Democrats wanting post-birth abortions, and a bunch of other nonsense that plays well with MAGA audiences but not with regular voters, who must have been wondering what the former president was talking about. There was no need to goad him into that.

Trump is clearly unable to answer most questions, think on his feet, or formulate coherent ideas. Therefore, his performance was always going to be a rehash of his campaign speeches and Fox News appearances. He doesn’t have any new material or actionable plans, which became hilariously obvious when he claimed that he had a “concept of a plan” for improving health care access for Americans.

This is where Harris could have really differentiated herself.

However, way too often, she also didn’t answer questions and instead tried to deliver pre-written zingers… in many cases awkwardly.

Harris would have been better served if she had used most of her time to present a positive vision, and not trigger the angry old guy next to her.

This was most evident when the debate covered topics that favor Democrats, such as abortion, democracy, and Trump failing to acknowledge that he lost the 2020 election.

In those moments, she came across as genuine, knowledgeable, and caring… all of which are qualities the former president lacks.

Trump, on the other hand, was defensive and… well, weird.

Those were the moments in which Harris won the debate because the contrast between her and the former president was so apparent.  

However, she too often reverted to those prepared talking points and attacks when she was less comfortable with the topics, e.g., when she had to defend the record of the Biden administration on the economy and immigration.

Still, she probably came out ahead in the debate because Trump is a one-trick pony and performed as expected.

However, what could have been an early knockout turned into a bruising 12-round bout that Harris ultimately won on points.

And, for somebody who has to introduce herself to the American people, that seems like a wasted opportunity.

*In his Navigating the Insanity columns, Klaus Marre provides the kind of hard-hitting, thought-provoking, and often funny analysis you won’t find anywhere else. 

Comments are closed.