Trump supporters have set a low bar for Kamala Harris tomorrow.

They shouldn't have.

Do many of the voters who are likely to decide the presidential race consume conservative media? If not, it might be a good thing for Donald Trump. Conservative outlets have set the bar for Kamala Harris’ debate performance so low that she likely will clear it, even if she’s as dumb as many conservatives are making her out to be.

Ron DeSantis predicts that Harris will serve up “90 minutes of word salads doused with platitudes.” Brian Kilmeade predicts that Trump will destroy Harris.

He observes, correctly, that Harris isn’t even taking questions from friendly mainstream media types. How, he wonders, can she possibly stand up to an onslaught from the great Trump?

One might just as easily wonder how Trump, who’s spending his time attacking Harris with MAGA talking points and jibes before adoring audiences, can appeal to non-MAGA voters during the debate. It’s true that Trump has vanquished one formidable-seeming Republican presidential hopeful after another (though not usually by out-debating them). He and his team caused DeSantis, whom he didn’t debate, to vanish nearly without a trace.

But Trump failed to put away the considerably less than formidable Joe Biden in 2020. Why the difference? Primarily because defeating Biden required appealing to swing voters who aren’t swayed by name-calling and boasts. A critical mass of Republican voters seem to eat that stuff up.

The answer to my question about how Harris can prosper in the upcoming debate is the same as my answer for how Trump can. Either (or both) can prosper by adapting.

Of the two, Harris seems far more likely to adapt. I suspect that she’s using some of the time she saves by avoiding the media to prepare for the debate — memorizing focus-group-tested talking points and figuring out with her handlers how to respond (both substantively and otherwise) to Trump’s predictable insults and lines of attack.

I don’t give Harris high marks for intelligence, but in past debates and interviews she has shown the ability to spout talking points in non-word salad form. I’d cite her 2020 debate with Mike Pence as an example.

In addition, Harris sometimes has been able to create good debates moments (I’ll resist calling them “vibes”) that don’t involve policy discussion and that require only a light touch. During her interview with Dana Bush, she scored points (in my view) with her response to a question about Trump’s silly comments about her race. “Same old tired playbook; next question, please.,” she said.

Harris also produced a winning moment when she debated her opponent in the California attorney general race of 2010. During their debate, that opponent, Steve Cooley, was asked whether, if elected, he would take both his salary of $150,000 and his pension, to which he was entitled due to decades of public service.

Cooley responded that he would take both because he “earned” the pension. He added that he would use the pension money to supplement the “incredibly low salary of the state attorney general.”

Initially, Harris said nothing. But when asked if she had anything to add, she responded, “go for it Steve, you earned it.”

Cooley was perfectly justified in wanting to take his pension. But Harris scored style points.

Contrary to what her admirers say, this kind of answer isn’t the product of Harris’ alleged courtroom skills. It’s more like the product of hanging out with her old sorority sisters. But it’s effective.

Most presidential debates are won or lost on style and humor, not substance. They are largely about creating good (or bad) sound bites. “There you go, again,” wasn’t a policy point, but it was a great sound bite.

Harris won the sound-bite war in the 2010. She won it again, at least for swing female voters, with her “I’m speaking” line in the 2020 debate with Pence.

You don’t have to be intelligent to create winning sound bites. You don’t even have to be quick, if your team can anticipate openings.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Harris wins the sound-bite war, and the debate, tomorrow. Trump seems less adaptable than Harris. He’s certainly less amenable to coaching. Nor is he one for the light touch. He can be funny, but his humor is appreciated mostly by people who already like him.

Trump would be better off if his handlers and media fans had set a lower bar. But they didn’t want to commit heresy by denying that Trump is less than a superstar on any stage.

I might be quite wrong about how Harris and/or Trump will perform. But I’m pretty sure I’m right to prefer that the bar be set higher for Harris than conservative media and Team Trump have placed it — and lower for Trump.