By Manzanita Miller
Mainstream media polls show Kamala Harris “won” the ABC News debate Tuesday against former President Donald Trump — the first and only debate between the two — which isn’t that surprising considering the debate devolved into three-against-one, with Trump fending off attacks from Harris and relentless “fact checking” from the hosts.
CNN’s flash poll reveals that their viewers say Harris did a better job in the debate by 26 points. However, even on the major network’s flash poll, CNN viewers said Trump would do a better job on key issues. Americans said post-debate they trust Trump more on the economy by 20 points, 55 percent to 35 percent, on immigration by 23 points, 56 percent to 33 percent, and as commander-in-chief by six points, 49 percent to 43 percent.
Other polls show Trump’s loss was smaller, with YouGov, a more neutral audience than CNN, reporting 43 percent of Americans say Harris won the debate, 28 percent say Trump did, and a full 30 percent aren’t sure.
The debate was blatantly set up to favor Harris, but bear in mind as well that Trump “lost” every debate with Hillary Clinton in 2016 according to mainstream networks but went on to win the election in November. In fact, CNN reported that in the last presidential debate between Trump and Clinton in September 2016, Trump lost the debate by a full 35 points, nine points more than he lost Tuesday’s debate by, yet Trump went on to win the election.
Unlike the history-altering presidential debate between President Biden and Trump nine weeks ago – where Biden not only lost the debate but was deemed unfit to continue running – this debate may not be as pivotal through the eyes of voters.
However, it is worth noting what is happening with televised debates. First, the mainstream media have aligned with the powerful elite to control and contort November’s election in the direction they desire. The CNN debate between Trump and Biden in June was used to finally “reveal” to the public just how decrepit Biden was, so the public would readily accept anyone else – including a do-nothing Vice President – as his substitute. Tuesday’s debate served a similar well-defined objective, it was intended to obliterate Trump while leaving Harris smiling and unscathed.
Second, Harris’ strategy appears to be one of provocation. She maintained a sense of squeaky clean, eerie detachment, smiling broadly while simultaneously hurling personal insults and untruths at her opponent. She danced around questions she did not wish to answer in typical beltway fashion, while making outlandish claims about people leaving Trump rallies early to get under his skin.
While Trump came out with the same energy he brought to the debate against Biden nine weeks ago – somewhat restrained and focused on the economy and immigration – Harris immediately employed a duplicitous strategy of personal attacks.
Through simpering smiles, Harris attacked Trump on a personal level, portraying him as a radical extremist, bringing up debunked claims that he praised Charlottesville extremists and that he threatened a blood bath if he loses the election. All of these claims have been misconstrued for political gain; however, it was a tactic employed to get a rise out of Trump.
Early in the debate Harris made a provocative statement inviting viewers to attend one of Trump’s rallies, claiming people leave Trump rallies early in a clear attempt to get under his skin.
Harris also accused Trump of planning to implement the now infamous “Project 2025”, a set of policy proposals from the conservative Heritage Foundation which Trump has repeatedly stated he is not involved with. Harris stated that Project 2025 “is a detailed and dangerous plan” that the former president “intends on implementing if he were elected again.” Trump defended himself, saying, “as you know, and as she knows, I have nothing to do with Project 2025. That’s out there, I haven’t read it.”
Between lodging provoking statements at Trump, Harris expertly dodged questions, once again failing to explain why her positions on fracking and immigration have changed so substantially since she ran unsuccessfully against Joe Biden in the Democratic primaries.
When asked by the moderators why she was running as pro-fracking now when she ran firmly in favor of banning fracking in 2019, Harris refused to address the change in policy. Instead, she simply repeated that her “values haven’t changed” and she has, “not banned fracking as vice president.”
A poll from the Washington Post where uncommitted swing state voters were asked about their opinions after the debate found that while some left-leaning undecided voters liked what Harris said, they didn’t know if they could trust it. One participant said, “what she says is what I hope the future of America is, but it sounds like a lot of politics talk. I don’t know I can trust her.”
In short, Harris went full beltway politician on Trump. She had likely rehearsed within an inch of her life and the moderators allowed her to wriggle out of answering direct questions. Trump, meanwhile, could barely get a word in without the biased moderators “fact-checking” him, as if every case he spoke about ought to be readily available in the mainstream news.
“America finally got to hear Kamala Harris as she once again failed to address the critical issues facing our nation, providing no answers to the continued high costs of food and housing and the decline in America’s real wages”, Americans for Limited Government President Richard Manning said in a statement Tuesday night. “The Harris-Biden inflation has destroyed many Americans’ hope to achieve the American dream. Continuing the Harris economic policy for another four years will result in higher taxes and bigger deficits that already have us on the brink of recession.”
Harris came across as a well-coached typical beltway politician, the likes of which Americans haven’t seen since Hilary Clinton’s campaign in 2016. We have become accustomed to more raw authenticity from their political figures over the past eight years, and watching Harris felt oddly out of place in 2024.
Even Biden’s bumbling and often unintentionally absurd statements over the past four years have not been well-oiled or politically typical. And Trump has never donned a simpering fake-smile while lodging personal attacks at his opponent like Harris did Tuesday night. Harris’ approach was reminiscent of Hillary Clinton, and a bygone era in politics where phony pseudo-professionalism to cover up a slew of shortcomings was common.
Whether the American people buy what Harris is selling is uncertain at this point. Her sterile rehearsed phoniness may resonate with certain coastal elites whose primary goal is to turn on CNN and see their president acting like a typical beltway politician. But times have changed. For the average American whose concerns are far more personal – crushing inflation, millions of illegal immigrants streaming over a sieve-like border, empowered dictators causing wars to break out on the global stage – Harris may not resonate at all.
Manzanita Miller is the senior political analyst at Americans for Limited Government Foundation.
