Staff Reports
The much-anticipated presidential debate between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris turned out to be more of a circus act than a serious contest. Trump entered the stage, but it appears he left his A-game at home, not to mention a solid defense against the barrage of biased questions thrown at him by the cleverly stacked deck of moderators. Harris, completely prepared and ready to dodge and weave through a series of her avoidable responsibilities, was like a cat playing with a mouse, while Trump seemed to forget that sometimes it’s better to come out swinging than just clenching a fist.
One of the highlights of the evening was Harris’s uncanny ability to pivot away from questions that could have put her on the defensive. Any reasonable doubt about her record on initiatives like the Minnesota bail fund or her previous stance on fracking was expertly evaded, allowing her to skate away without as much as a scratch. At one moment, she could even be seen shaking her head as Trump brought up the Minnesota bail fund, a fact that remains undeniably true. In the world of debates, it seems Harris’s strategy of avoidance was more than just a lucky charm; it was practically a rehearsed dance.
Fact check: Harris repeatedly promised to ban fracking, she co-sponsored a bill to outlaw private health insurance, and she endorsed a “mandatory buyback” on guns. If she ‘no longer believes’ those things, she hasn’t explained why. At all.
Any ABC follow up on any of that?
— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) September 11, 2024
ABC’s role in this one-act play was as obvious as a neon sign—shining bright with bias. While Trump faced fact-checkers throwing caution to the wind by questioning him in real time, Harris could twirl on the stage without facing the same scrutiny. Not once did the moderators dive deep into her record or dig for answers about her numerous flip-flops on policies, leaving viewers wondering if they stumbled into a comedy club instead of a political debate. The lack of follow-ups on her promises to ban fracking or her support for private health care was glaring and, frankly, an indictment of the so-called journalistic integrity of the format.
In a true stroke of irony, Trump’s attempts to focus on Harris’s evasion tactics often got lost in the weeds as he ventured off into discussions about tariffs, when what he really should have done was focus on the critical “are you better off?” question she artfully dodged at the start. Instead of hammering her for her lack of specificity and her long list of vagaries about her own policies, he veered onto side conversations that made the viewers long for a cue to throw out a lifeline. Even in his closing statements, where he finally called out her failures, the impact felt diluted and underwhelming.
Unfortunately for the former president, this debate will likely land in the win column for Harris, not because she deserved it, but because she played her cards right and took advantage of the chaotic format. It’s amusing to picture a group of Republicans yelling at their screens as Harris sidestepped important topics while Trump wandered into rhetorical quicksand. If the debate was designed to showcase her competence and painted Trump as a disorganized candidate, it worked like a charm.
With polling indicating Harris emerging as the “winner,” one has to wonder whether her style of evasion will resonate with a wider audience in an increasingly divided electorate. While many observers may be swayed by the optics of preparedness, the elephant in the room remains the reality of voters living in the world shaped by the current administration. If Trump manages to exploit the underlying discontent across the nation, he might still emerge victorious despite a less-than-stellar showing on debate night. Ultimately, the stage was set for an act, and while Harris played her role successfully, the question remains whether her performance will carry weight beyond the applause of a carefully curated audience.
