First the good news:
Kamala Harris thoroughly wiped the floor with Donald Trump. Don't let anyone tell you differently. Even some conservative commentators were dismayed by just how bad Trump was and how prepared Harris seemed.
The pressure on Harris was enormous. Her momentum had stalled and the race was ostensibly tied. A bad performance would've been fatal. She knew she had to win, and she came through with flying colors. Harris successfully laid out her vision for what the next four years would be like with her in the White House - something I said she had to do - and she did so while looking presidential.
That was the key. Trump is a known commodity; Harris is still something of a mystery to many voters. The nation needed to see and hear her in a non-controlled environment. And they got their wish. Some 67 million people tuned in to watch the debate live. This was her moment to shine, and shine she did.
But her biggest accomplishment was one that, to be honest, I was worried might prove to be her undoing. Going in, the concern was that Trump would drag Harris down to his level by baiting her; instead, it was the other way around. It was Harris who got under Trump's skin. Throughout the entire debate, she would say things to try and provoke him, and, damn, if the old buzzard just couldn't resist. The lack of self control on Trump's part was staggering, even for him. The former prosecutor had herself quite a night.
Now the bad news:
None of this may make much difference. While the post-debate polling overwhelmingly showed that Harris won the debate, some of the post-debate comments by supposedly undecided voters seemed to indicate that they weren't entirely sold on her. They liked her more than they liked Trump, but they still needed to know more about her plans before they would commit to voting for her.
Which begs the question: just what exactly IS an undecided voter? Seriously, if after watching that debate, you still haven't made up your mind, I'm not sure what else Harris can do to persuade you. Frankly, if she winds up getting more than a one and a half point bump from this debate, I'll be pleasantly surprised. The country is so polarized, there just isn't much room for movement.
Then there's the rather inconvenient truth that winning the first debate isn't necessarily a harbinger of things to come in November. Al Gore (2000), John Kerry (2004), Mitt Romney (2012) and Hillary Clinton (2016) all had impressive performances in their first debate against their opponent; and all lost. If you're looking for something to hang your hat on: in 2020, Joe Biden won his first debate against Trump pretty much the same way Harris did: by letting Trump be Trump. We all know what happened that year. Can history repeat itself?
One thing is certain: another debate with Trump would be pointless. What's she gonna do? Wipe the floor with him again? One beatdown is enough. Let someone else eat that dog. Sorry, I couldn't resist. No, if I were Harris, I'd do a Town Hall with Lester Holt on NBC. The media wants more interviews? Fine, what better way to accommodate them than with an open forum with potential voters in the audience who can ask her questions as well as the moderator? Then I'd go on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart; I'd also do some podcasts with influential people who can help her with voter turnout. Screw Trump and his sycophants.
The truth is Harris needs to spend the next seven weeks barnstorming the seven swing states. Endorsements by Taylor Swift and Liz Cheney are nice, but ultimately what'll move the needle is Harris herself. I've seen enough sporting events to know it isn't the fans who determine the outcome; it's the players. If the voters need more info, then give it to them. She has a higher ceiling than Trump; it's up to her to rise up to it.
It is nothing short of a national embarrassment that this election is even close. People from all around the world are laughing at us. In his whole, miserable life, Trump has told the truth twice: the first was when he said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose any supporters; the second was when he said he loved the poorly educated. These are literally the only reasons his campaign hasn't imploded. Any other politician's career would've been over years ago.
Fair or not, Kamala Harris has to do two things to win: 1. Make her case to the electorate that she's qualified to be the next president of the United States; 2. Overcome an education system that has failed miserably at the worst possible moment in American history. That second one may prove to be tougher than the first.
Bottom line, Kamala Harris is in a better position today than she was before the debate. But don't kid yourself. This will be a very close election; one that could be decided by a few thousand votes; maybe even a few hundred. For context, George Bush won the 2000 presidential election by a mere 537 votes.
That's about as close as it gets.
Comments