Donald Trump—Loser

Hands down, in Philadelphia’s presidential debate sponsored by ABC News, former President Donald Trump emerged as the clear loser. Serves him right. As usual he lied throughout the event, fell into the numerous traps Harris laid out for him, failed to challenge Harris’s share of whoppers and didn’t press her on her remarkably convenient set of implied policy changes. 

He didn’t ask why the sudden change of heart on fracking.   Nor did he point out that in 2019 she opposed allowing citizens to purchase private health insurance. He didn’t call her out on her support for using taxpayer dollars to fund trans surgeries for migrant inmates. He also allowed her to dodge the question of whether she would support any restrictions on abortion. And not to put too fine a point on Trump’s strategic incompetence, he actually allowed Harris to put him on the defensive over our chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan.   

The list of missed opportunities is almost endless. Instead of things that matter, Trump wallowed in his personal grievances, and produced the usual lies and wild exaggerations. And speaking of wild hyperbole, we learned that Trump is concerned that (illegal?) immigrants in Ohio are eating citizens’ pets. And that crime everywhere is the world is down except here in the United States where it continues to rise, presumably because other countries send their criminals to America to ply their trade. 

A time-series chart produced by the data firm Statista shows what nonsense this is. (See below). The U.S. does have a much higher murder rate than Europe, for instance. But it has been much higher than Europe’s rate for at least 20 years. And—wait for it—when did the US rate explode to the upside? That would be around 2019—well before the Covid-19 pandemic hit and when none other than Donald Trump was president. Hmm. 

But let’s not go down a rabbit hole while trying to illustrate the obvious, namely that Donald Trump is a serial liar. Strategically speaking the important question to ask is this: was Trump just making up stuff as he went along or was he actually trying to accomplish something?   Well, if his goal was to remind educated voters what they don’t like about him (actually why they detest him) he can claim the night was a stunning success. 

But does it matter? Will it have any impact on the election results? That is really hard to say. I am reminded of the time in the early 1970s that Henry Kissinger asked Chinese premiere Zhou Enlai whether he thought the French Revolution was a success. “Too early to say” Zhou reportedly replied. And so it is with the schoolyard brawl we call a debate. 

By all accounts the number of people who have not made up their minds about either of the two major party candidates is vanishingly small. The majority opinion among the electorate seems to be disgust, which is a testament to the good sense of the voting public. It is unlikely that partisans of either side will be persuaded to change their opinions. The vote of Manhattan’s Upper West Side is not in doubt. 

What really matters is the impact on what we charitably call low information voters. Trump appears to have an edge in these voters. They tend to show up in presidential election years, but not off years. So the question is: in what numbers do they show up to vote? And where do they show up? If they turnout in large numbers in rural areas, they would advantage Trump. If, on the other hand, Trump succeeded in losing more suburban women (a real possibility) or if Kamala Harris’s demeanor was reassuring to the remaining small contingent of undecided voters, then it would be advantage Harris. 

The Trump campaign is (predictably and with some justification) already whining about how the moderators treated their man. But when you complain about the ref, it means you are losing the game and you know it. 

The net of it is that in terms of style Harris won the debate, walking away.  In terms of substance—there wasn’t any to speak of. No surprise there. But keep in mind that polling indicates an extraordinarily tight race. A few thousand votes could matter in swing states. Will the debate change enough votes, or increase turnout on the margin where it matters? As Zhou Enlai said, It’s too early to tell. 

JFB