As last night’s debate proceeded, left-wing Twitter was gleeful. In their view, Trump got destroyed in pretty much every way known to man. Yet in the light of day, even the largely pro-Harris media has been forced to avoid such overexcited wishcasting. All they can agree on, seemingly, is that the debate…wasn’t particularly civil.
What happened? Well, perhaps they did what liberals have struggled to do for the past eight years: namely, they got off social media and actually talked to actual undecided voters. And, at least if you judge by Reuters and the New York Times, the results were not the blowout Twitter was expecting. While the people in question didn’t like Trump’s performance, they also weren’t all that concerned because they could remember what it was like when he was president. Harris, on the other hand, was simply too “vague” (their words) for them to trust her. This suggests that, despite the CNN post-debate poll showing 63 percent of voters saying Harris won, compared to only 37 for Trump, it may not move the needle nearly as much as the average pink hat wearer would hope.
But just as importantly, we think there is ample room for optimism that Trump will gain sympathy over time. Because not only was last night’s debate not civil, it wasn’t even fair.
To begin with, the optics alone were terrible: Trump was on the left side of the screen, with the camera pointing down at him (a classic filmmaking technique to make someone appear villainous). But worse than that, it quickly devolved into a 3-on-1. This became obvious around the same time the debate started going downhill for Trump: when moderator Linsey Davis did something which was supposed to be utterly off-limits since 2012 and corrected President Trump live on-air. After what had otherwise been a strong performance from the former president pointing out the extremism of the Democrats’ abortion stance, and how it even includes support for abortion after birth, Davis sniffed that there was no state where abortion after birth is legal. This was a total non sequitur, by the way, since what Trump was talking about what the Democrats want to be legal, not what is, and was referencing a statement by former Gov. Ralph Northam of Virginia, which is on tape:
Again, this kind of correction was a scandal in 2012 when moderator Candy Crowley corrected Republican nominee Mitt Romney live on-air. Yet last night? It was hard to tell who Trump was debating at times, so often did the moderators—particularly David Muir—make themselves part of the story. And the point was obvious: to throw Trump off his stride. Because, as became obvious in the first segment (on the economy), Kamala Harris could not handle him on her own.
However, once abortion came around and it was clear the moderators would protect her at all costs? Well, anyone would feel confident, then, because not only was Trump fact checked, but Kamala was allowed to use any argument she wanted, the facts be damned. For example, she was allowed to lie about Trump’s support of Project 2025 (he doesn’t support it), his record on IVF (he supports it), the “very fine people” hoax, the lie that he denigrated the military, and those are just the ones we remember. Worse still, the questions themselves were slanted, with the moderators often asking Trump questions that were literal Harris campaign talking points, only to then turn to Harris and ask her to react, with virtually no challenge in response. No wonder whatever that this happened on the most anti-Trump news network in America.
In short, Trump got jumped. It was 3-on-1, and he had to swing at everyone, not just his opponent. This wasn’t a fair fight; it was an ambush. Some even suspect that Harris was given the questions in advance.
In other words, it would have taken a miracle to come out of this unscathed.
So why was Trump still able to win over undecided voters? Well, the answer there comes not so much in what was said, but in what wasn’t. Not only was Harris essentially pivoting from one canned, contentless speech to another the entire night, but her nonverbal behavior during the debate was atrocious; so much so that it invites comparisons to the infamous 1960 Kennedy-Nixon debate, which Kennedy won among TV viewers because Nixon’s sweating made him appear untrustworthy. Kamala didn’t sweat – though her nerves were apparent early on – but oh boy, did she smirk. While Trump’s expression was basically a brick wall the whole time, with occasional flashes of wry humor, Kamala practically mugged for the camera, like she was trying to do an impression of Maya Rudolph’s impression of her. It didn’t just come off as silly, but as smug, insufferable, and catty. At times we weren’t sure if we were watching Trump debating Kamala Harris, or Cady Herron debating Regina George, with Gretchen Wieners and Karen Smith moderating.
Don’t take our word for it. The often anti-Trump pollster Frank Luntz said this more diplomatically, but more or less agreed:
Which is yet another reason why we think that with time, Trump’s performance will be viewed with more sympathy. Because while liberals have been begging for someone to laugh in Trump’s face and goad him for eight years, voters don’t actually want to vote for the political equivalent of female high school bullies snickering into their hands, particularly when those bullies are laughing at concerns they may share. The natural question is, “would they be that nasty to me?” And the answer is yes, yes they would, because in their eyes, Trump supporters – and anyone who dares to question them— are only worthy of unbridled malice.
Which is funny, because Kamala herself seemed eager to crib from Trump’s notes. This was particularly obvious early on in the debate, when she not only had to dodge the obvious point that her own administration kept Trump’s tariffs on China in place, but also had to concede that Trump had been right all along about something when she blamed President Xi Jinping of China for COVID. Yes, the thing that was derided as a racist conspiracy theory in 2020 is now a Democratic talking point. We think the lady doth smirk too much.
Not to mention that despite any missteps he may have made, Trump closed strong, with a question that was basically a bullet to the entire Harris leer-laugh-lie strategy: “Why hasn’t she done it?”
Why, indeed? To the extent that Harris has an agenda at all, you have to wonder: why hasn’t she been able to take leadership on any of it? Why did it only materialize literally this Monday? Again, this is why undecided voters might be inclined to score the debate as a draw. Because Trump, love him or hate him, has been saying the same thing for eight years. Harris’ policy agenda isn’t even a week old, and flatly contradicts what she’s run on in the past. So which is the real Harris? Trump saved that question – the most important one, and the one that (by design) she could not answer with the help of her ABC toadies – for last. And as closing statements go, he made it count.
Which is to say nothing about the fact that despite all her carefully choreographed speechifying, Harris studiously avoided addressing her biggest weaknesses – her perceived extreme progressivism and her perceived connection to the Biden administration. Her only gesture toward dispelling the idea that she’s too progressive was touting an endorsement by Dick Cheney – a figure practically synonymous with the worst parts of the Washington establishment. And as for her connections to Biden? Here’s a game for you: name one time when she disagreed with Biden’s approach as president. On anything. You can’t, because it didn’t happen. Which means Harris did nothing to help herself with the kind of people who will decide this election. Instead, her entire performance was pitched straight at the Reddit and SNL crowd who just wanted someone to belittle the Bad Orange Man. Sorry liberals, but even if man cannot live on bread alone, no one can live entirely on Twitter owns.
Oh, and did we mention that Kamala Harris is already calling for a second debate? Because she is. Which just goes to show that either her campaign is desperately afraid that last night didn’t go as well as the media believes (which, after the undecided reaction, seems likely), or else they’re so suicidally overconfident that they can’t imagine President Trump learning from the experience and counterpunching. Either way, they will regret it.
So, be of good cheer. Yes, maybe Kamala Harris made herself look like a winner to the pundit class for two hours. Donald Trump made all of America win for four straight years. Kamala Harris was fake, evasive, and slippery; Donald Trump was real, warts and all. Which is why, despite the flood of premature backslapping last night, the media has avoided calling the night a blowout. Even they know that once the glitz fades, and the smoke clears, the American people will remember who talked, and who acted. They’ll remember who pretended to stand for democracy despite getting zero votes, and who actually stands for it despite getting at least one bullet to the head for his trouble. And, as even Reuters and the New York Times have been forced to concede, there is still every reason to believe that when November comes along, people will vote for a real, if flawed change agent over a fake, disingenuous, smirking embodiment of the status quo.
