For the first half hour of last night’s presidential debate I thought Donald Trump was remarkably disciplined and on message. He even got off some complete sentences.
Then Kamala Harris brought up his rallies. “People get bored and walk away.” It was a line calculated to get under Trump’s skin.
And, boy, did it. Trump blew up. He got rattled. He got loud. Sentence fragments flew into the night. Associations got loose. He answered a question about abortion by talking about student debt. He answered a question about fracking by talking about the government paying for, “transgender operations on illegal immigrants in prison.” He talked about immigrants eating family pets — your family’s pets.
And that was that. Harris, who had started out a little tight and tentative was now fully relaxed and confident. She had set the trap and Trump walked into it just as scripted.
Harris did the main thing she needed to do. She came off as presidential. She convinced anyone who had doubts that she could be commander in chief. She passed easily through the narrow window between angry and weak. She did great.
And for the last hour of the debate Trump was Trump. He actually wasn’t any worse than he was against Joe Biden but this time the contrast was stark.
A word of caution though. I wouldn’t expect a big polling bump for Harris. If Biden’s awful performance didn’t cost him much in the polls there’s no reason to expect that Harris’ great performance is going to result in big gains. We’re just too locked in.
But Harris did herself no harm, and she may have done a great deal of good, among the 100,000 or so swing voters who will decide this election. Trump did himself no good and may have done some harm with those same voters.
Harris did not win the election last night. But she had a big time rally.
Yellow Stripes & Dead Armadillos 
Among my favorite lines: Donald Trump was fired by 81 million people.
I do wonder why people seem to make Trump’s love for Putin all about a bromance, when I recall reading that Russia is the only place any of the Trumps can get loans anymore. Think it has more to do with that than anything else. So if that’s the case, I’d like to hear that point made. Otherwise, she hit most of the high points of his low points.
LikeLike
I gritted my teeth and got through most of the debate. I understand why there are drinking games so that you can get through these painful performances without blowing a gasket. The biggest issue for me is the lack of substance. People don’t argue about principles or particulars, it’s positioning and looks with a ton of heat.
Harris did better than I expected. With the exception of the first few questions, she was able to get answers off without devolving into her trademark word salads. She was also able to get underneath Trump’s skin at times. Her demeanor with regards to Trump mostly devolved into smirks.
She also avoided answering questions with any substance. I believe this is what you were hoping for Dave. Way too much time spent exaggerating Trump’s flaws and her record.
Trump was reasonably even keeled for the first half, but frequently devolved into belligerence for the second, including plenty of rambling, which most people probably couldn’t follow.
Lies and exaggerations were equally distributed.
One of the things that stood out for me – the unified messaging that emerged after the debate. We now have state-‘sponsored’ media. CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, PBS, WaPo, NYT, Reuters, AP, The Guardian, all following the DNC talking points, as you are Dave. I’m assuming this is because you read many of these sources? See Matt Taibbi’s article (paywalled) for excellent coverage on this point.
https://www.racket.news/p/boom-dnc-talking-points-become-instant
or just search on ‘debate takeaways’ to get a very clear picture.
Harris made some things clear – she’s going to be very pro-abortion, pro Big government, pro-war, pro-censorship. She will follow the neo-con playbook for what I find to be the most disastrous foreign policy decisions in our nation’s history. She will be giving away as much as possible, at a time when the US has no real money to give.
Now I have to take a shower.
LikeLike
No, I read none of those sources before I wrote my piece. In fact, I was a commentator on Channel 3000 last night and and had to go on immediately after the debate ended, so I didn’t get the “benefit” of any of the national talking heads. I don’t think this is group think. And the liberal talkers I’ve heard since have echoed your point about substance. I admit that it was short on that, but you’re right, for all the reasons I’ve stated at too much length in the past I’m not big on detail.
LikeLike
Is Wall Street too liberal? It seems there is a reaction there to the debate and faith in Trump…..there has also been criticism from his own party. I wonder if all those organizations you criticize as being biased are simply bothered with things like facts.
Also, nothing says censorship like book bans. Not sure what about the debate led you to believe Harris is for censorship. It’s kind of exactly the other way around.
LikeLike
Thank you Dave. I don’t think it was group think either; they were following the script laid out by the DNC.
I think Kennedy summed it up best: Trump won on substance, Harris on delivery, polish, organization and preparation.
The moderators also clearly gave Harris many more passes on her bloviation, which even the liberal press acknowledged.
If this is the only debate, the DNC wins again for being able to shield one of the weakest candidates foisted on the US electorate.
LikeLike
PS – Fact check on pet eating:
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/HaitianMigrantCat.mp4?_=1
Warning – this is a graphic video.
LikeLike
Are you really putting forward Martin A. Armstrong as a trusted source? And for THIS topic? Come on!
You know, I bet it is true that there a
has at least once in the past 100 years been a non-citizen who ate a pet. I also bet that the same is true of a citizen. This is an unserious topic for a presidential campaign from an unserious candidate. The same guy that killed the bipartisan immigration bill, just so his plans to talk about these wired stories during the campaign wouldn’t be foiled. So now we’re forced to inhabit his wired world. Please let’s stop entertaining this dim person’s whims.
LikeLike
Ad hominems don’t advance your argument Rollie. If you look at the video, it is from a police body cam.
Springfield is a town of 58k, prior to immigration. There are 20k Haitian immigrants in Springfield, granted ad hoc legal status by Biden. What is happening there? Why is it happening? I don’t know the answers, but the story is worth investigation.
Advancing theoreticals “I bet it is true…” doesn’t go anywhere either.
LikeLike
LikeLike