Trump-Harris debate reiterates known traits: he’s confrontational, she’s untruthful
Donald Trump was angry. Kamala Harris was preachy. The moderators were on her side.
Tuesday night’s debate between Trump and Harris was never going to be enlightening, given these two candidates. It wasn’t Lincoln and Douglas.
But it did put on display who they both are.
Trump was belligerent. He bragged about his accomplishments and the things he thinks he would have done if he was re-elected — which he still claims he was. He was unapologetic about every bad thing he’s ever done.
When baited into talking about January 6 and his 2020 stolen-election theories, he gladly walked into the trap. He peddled a deeply dubious story about Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio eating pet cats and dogs.
But he was also vigorous and combative, dispelling any concerns about his advanced age.
He returned again and again and again to his favorite themes: out-of-control immigration, the economy getting worse under Biden and Harris than it was on his watch, foreigners taking advantage of America on trade, and the eruption of foreign wars under Biden and Harris that wouldn’t have happened under Trump.
Nobody came away wondering what Trump thinks are the most important issues of the day.
It’s harder to say that for Harris, except on abortion.
Was this a good night for Trump? He probably did nothing to change anyone’s view of him, other than possibly reassuring people worried about his age.
He glowered and ranted. He seemed like the same old bull in a china shop he was nine years ago, both for better and for worse.
The microphones being off prevented him from interrupting Harris — he even mocked her desire to be interrupted by quipping that he was talking.
Trump’s number one job was to convince voters of two things: that Harris would be a continuance of failed Biden policies, and that she was too left-wing.
On the first goal, he largely succeeded. He referred again and again to Biden as “her boss,” challenged her — without a response — to part company with him, and called on her to explain why her campaign promises hadn’t been done already.
On the second goal, he had mixed success, as moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis of ABC repeatedly changed the subject when things got uncomfortable for Harris on her past record.
They tried to “fact check” Trump several times, but never attempted the same for Harris — even when she baldly denied her own prior record.
Harris really does support abortion until the moment of birth, and her party (including her running mate) really does resist care for babies born alive after botched abortions.
She really did run for president in 2020 on confiscating guns, banning fracking, and abolishing private health insurance. The moderators shouldn’t have worked so hard to shelter her from facing those critiques.
Was this a good night for Harris? She probably didn’t persuade anyone to vote against Trump with a lot of well-worn attacks, but given that he’s never yet cracked 47% of the vote nationwide, she may not have to.
Far more important was selling herself.
On the upside, Harris avoided the sort of rambling word salads that have made her the butt of Washington humor for years.
She stuck to her script as much as possible, and that included talking more about Trump than about herself and Biden. That’s a win.
Catch up on The Post’s debate coverage
For all her vaunted reputation as a prosecutor, however, Harris could only recite Trump’s legal rap sheet rather than actually try to explain why the law ought to be after him.
But a lot of what Harris did in chiding Trump just reminded people that official Washington and the establishment hate him.
Goldman Sachs and Nobel Prize-winning economists dislike his economic plans. John McCain stopped him from repealing Obamacare. The Cheneys are against him, and so is the military brass. People who worked for him came away disillusioned.
In an America that had more faith in these institutions, this would sting.
But such an America would never have elected Trump the first time.
What’s scandalous is what never came up at all.
Harris was never asked about her support for a Supreme Court “term limits” plan that appears aimed at forcing three conservative justices off the bench to pack the court.
She got away with embracing Israel’s “right to defend itself” without mentioning her side’s embrace of pro-Hamas protesters, or explaining how her one-sided pressure on Israel would constrict its options to purely defensive responses, even in the face of massacres.
Whenever Trump was gaining momentum, the moderators switched to a topic such as abortion or climate change that sent Harris to her happy place.
In a polarized country, this is the sort of debate that sends partisans back to their corners. Unlike Biden’s flameout in June, it’s unlikely to seriously reset the race.
If you really want to know who lost, watch which side wants a rematch.
Dan McLaughlin is a senior writer at National Review.
