Don't blame the moderators for last night
Donald Trump’s supporters are blaming the moderators of last night’s debate for their man’s poor showing. It’s true that the moderators, especially David Muir, did their best to help Kamala Harris.
They fact-checked Trump constantly — sometimes over false statements by the former president; sometimes not. I don’t remember them fact-checking Harris on any of her false or highly misleading statements (there were more than a few of both).
The moderators also slanted the debate by their sequencing the topics. The early part of the debate — the only part that many people watch — focused on abortion. This favored Harris.
In addition, the moderators slanted specific questions. For example, the question about Trump’s role in the January 6 rally purported to describe what Trump told the crowd. But Muir left out the part in which Trump told them to march “peacefully and patriotically.” I don’t think these words fully exonerate Trump, but they shouldn’t have been omitted from the question.
Still, it’s clear to me that Trump would have lost the debate regardless of who moderated it. Harris proved to be much better at this than Trump.
The “word salads” that Trump’s backers assured us we would hear from her were few and far between. Indeed, Harris showed not only that she could memorize enough talking points to get through the debate — as I expected — but also that she could deliver them forcefully.
Trump, meanwhile, was Trump — angry, ill-disciplined, vague, and repetitive. Just as Joe Biden’s disastrous performance obscured the fact that Trump didn’t debate well, Trump being Trump partially obscured the fact that Harris had nothing much of substance to say about any topic other than Trump.
As for the moderators, the question MAGA World should be asking is: What did Trump expect from ABC News and Davis Muir?
Trump is supposed to be a great dealmaker. He’s the guy who is going to negotiate an end to the war in Ukraine immediately. He’s the guy who is going out-negotiate the Chinese.
Yet somehow, he negotiated himself into a debate hosted by a hostile mainstream media outlet with a lead moderator who clearly favors his opponent.
Muir’s bias wasn’t a secret. As Ann Coulter pointed out before the debate, his anti-police coverage of the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, Missouri was as dishonest as anything either candidate said last night.
Trump should know better than anyone how much he is despised by the mainstream media. Therefore, he should have played hardball when it came to setting up this debate.
I know it’s difficult for any Republican presidential candidate to find a fair moderator, but Trump didn’t need to saddle himself with Muir. In fact, Trump didn’t need to debate Harris.
After the first debate, he was operating from a position of strength. Never since then has he been operating from a position of weakness. Trump could have insisted on moderators of his choice. If Harris wouldn’t consent, he could have refused to debate.
Frankly, that’s the outcome I was hoping for — no debate. It was clear enough to me that Harris would likely out-debate Trump.
Republican presidential candidates are like Charlie Brown, kicking the air instead of the football and then falling down hard. The person who pulls the ball away could be Candy Crowley; it could be Chris Wallace; it could be David Muir. Someone almost always plays the “Lucy” role.
By now, the trick is old enough that any competent Republican candidate should be able to avoid falling victim to it. Unfortunately, Trump is not a competent Republican candidate, in my view.
Poor Donald Trump. People are always letting him down. Not just debate moderators but former candidate members (e.g., Jeff Sessions and Bill Barr), chiefs-of-staff, and other one-time MAGA stalwarts. .
It never seems to occur to Trump’s ardent followers that the their guy has poor judgment. They blame “the swamp,” not Trump.
If the election goes to Harris, maybe Trump’s core supporters will finally ask themselves whether Trump is the right man to drain the swamp. I suspect that many of them will instead claim that Trump won. But that would be another concession that Trump can’t get the better of the swamp.
Thanks for the comment. You may be right that the debate won't have a meaningful impact on the outcome of the election and maybe even the polls. I hope you are.
Harris won on the "vibes" but not on the issues. I agree with you there.
But I can't see anyone switching from undecided to Trump based on his performance. I can see some voters (how many, I don't know) switching from undecided to Harris because she sounded good and had a pretty good demeanor.
Partially agree- Trump is often his own worst enemy for multiple reasons and for the majority of the debate this was the case. He underestimated both Harris’ ability to remain coherent for 90 minutes as also the extent of the open hostility of the moderators. ( As did I , AMD I was pretty cynical in this regard - but did not understand the stent of Muir’s lack of objectivity since I never watch ABC. However, while Harris clearly won on form and her ability to bait Trump, in spite of his problems to any semi objective observer Trump still clearly won on the issues - as both my unscientific anecdotal survey of my associates with political awareness and the panels of undecided voters conducted during and after the debate indicated. Her constant religion of her talking points and deflection on almost all issues grew increasingly obvious. I would be very surprised if this debate has any meaningful impact on either the polls or undecided voters’ decisions.
As difficult as I find it to vote for Trump, neither of them has the character that I would hope for in a President but at least Trump is a known quantity under whom the country prospered until Covid and she is a deceitful ultra progressive who could easily totally destroy our republic during a four year presidency . If she has not changed her values as she claims, then they are still inimical to me. And Walz is to the left of her and whose policies as a governor have been abominable.