Harris vs Trump Debate: A Viewer's Guide

[Twin Tiers Living 492]

By Frank Donatelli Leslie C. Francis

September 10, 2024

 

Donald Trump and Kamala Harris will soon meet in a high stakes nationally televised debate, perhaps the only one of this campaign.

In previous elections – 1960, 1976, 1980, 2000, and 2020 come immediately to mind – the election contests were heavily influenced by such encounters. This year, for sure, it is “high risk, high reward.” With an election so close, we believe this debate will be important – maybe even decisive – in determining the winner.

Having been involved in debate strategies in previous cycles, we have some idea of what the campaigns are thinking about just days before Tuesday’s showdown. And there are a few things viewers might keep in mind, as well.

Good debate preparation should emphasize three things more than anything else.

First, focus on two or three issues, themes, or personal qualities that the campaign hopes will resonate with the electorate.

Second, that focus should underscore or strengthen the main message of the campaign. This is not a time to freelance.

Third, memorable phrases or “zingers” are welcome, but not if they are canned, forced, or nasty.

For Trump, this means:

• He needs to control himself. The former president simply talks too much for his own good. He likes to talk over his opponent. (Note: The microphones can be controlled by the moderators this year.) He also frequently goes off message and launches personal attacks, as he will want to do against Harris. The result is a candidate who seems undisciplined and turns off persuadable voters.
• He should focus on the question asked and avoid tangents or personal attacks. This is a low bar, but he needs to clear it to have any chance of winning.
• Next, he has to settle on a coherent critique of his opponent. Traditional Republicans such as Lindsey Graham and Nikki Haley have urged Trump to focus more on policy. Although Trump has always scored points with his base when attacking his opponent, the criticisms must be credible to work on undecided voters. His attacks on Hillary Clinton as one too tied to the establishment and questions surrounding her private email server (remember that?) helped him win the 2016 election. Maybe he can try labeling Harris as a “San Francisco liberal” or an “issue flip-flopper,” but his attacks on the vice president have been scattershot and way too personal. He has boasted about being restrained in his fateful June 27 debate with Joe Biden. Can he do it again?
• Finally, the former president must talk beyond his base. His reluctance to do so is why his polling seems to have a ceiling in the mid-to-high 40s. There are only so many disenchanted white males out there. Trump had his best opportunity to grow his support after the attempt on his life and a rather good Republican convention, but his acceptance speech was a squandered opportunity. Is there anything he has to say that might appeal to undecideds or non-MAGA voters? And can he dial down the sarcasm and insults? If so, the debate is the time to do so.

For Kamala Harris:

• The vice president should not attempt to “untoss” Trump’s word salads. He throws a lot of stuff into each of his answers, and any effort to pick them apart is wasted effort. Harris should spend the bulk of her time on offense. She should also answer the questions asked by the moderators – something neither Biden nor Trump did on June 27, which only added to the perception that they are both too old.
• Harris is the candidate the public needs to hear more about. No press conferences and one interview doesn’t send a message that this is a confident candidate. Harris can lay that to rest Tuesday night. She should spend her time filling in the blanks on the resume and issue positions to the broader electorate. Her main goal is to pass the “chief executive” test. As the non-incumbent, the public must feel comfortable with her as president.
• Kamala Harris is 59. Donald Trump is 78. Her tagline, “We’re not going back,” is an artful phrase that can mean different things to different people. But one thing it’s meant to convey: the future belongs to the 59-year-old Democratic Party nominee, not the 78-year-old Republican. She should double down on that. It also separates her from the Biden administration while giving her room to define herself. Can she persuasively and credibly explain where her positions differ from Biden’s and why? The future is normally a winning message for Americans. The Veep must stay there as much as possible.
• Finally, Harris is more than a candidate. In her narrative, she represents an ideal, a new generation of leaders, a new hope for people and groups that have not previously been represented. To her, inclusion will be a crucial part of moving the country forward. She has been elected in the nation’s largest and most diverse state, and she seeks to lead an increasingly diverse America. This makes her uniquely qualified to lead the nation forward into the next chapter of the American Experience – with a large dose of hope and expanded opportunity. A cautionary note here: Harris must avoid going too far on “identity” matters lest she lose support from moderate and independent voters who resist such classifications.

Debates are not a perfect way for voters to learn about candidates, but they are far preferable to thirty- or sixty-second ads on TV or on social media. Televised presidential debates represent the best chance for the voters to see the candidates up close, answering questions about the future of the country and how they will handle the many challenges we face. Having the public make informed choices should be the goal of this great democracy we call America.

 

This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

 

[Hal 553]

10 minutes in and I’m tagging out ! The thing is this , when a speaker chokes on their words or has to swallow on key words , that is a signal to me that that person is lying or is really trying to actually believe the shit they are spewing . And she is really choking out those words so early in the game . Plus she has been schooled on how and when to poke the bear … 

I’ll catch the highlights in the morning . 

Edited September 11 by Hal

[Chris 3,218]

Didn’t watch it and don’t care. I don’t intend to vote for either one. 

[Hal 553]

I didn't intend to watch the whole thing and didn’t . It was as expected from the get go , a scripted pissing match , just thought I would give my opinion . 

[MsKreed 1,573]

I recorded it and only watched the beginning.

Long enough to hear both candidates go off on topics completely unrelated to the questions asked (with neither the moderators nor their opponent pointing out the tangents).

 

After stuff like Harris’s response about border security was to jab about attendance at Trump’s rallies....I had to tap out because I couldn’t even keep my head straight on what questions they’d been asked.

Then after seeing a slew of bizarre confusing memes and commentary on social media yesterday, I did look up some debate “analyses” to get some idea of WTF the deal was with “eating pets”.   So, I’m glad I got that cleared up. LOL

[Chris 3,218]

I couldn't believe he brought "people are eating cats" up until I heard him say it on one of the thousand replays the following day. Though I shouldn't be surprised. 

1 hour ago, MsKreed said:

After stuff like Harris’s response about border security was to jab about attendance at Trump’s rallies

Their entire campaign seems to have been about getting under his skin and causing him to say stupid things. Which isn't hard of course, but it's also not very helpful for voters. Those few that are somehow undecided that is. 

[MsKreed 1,573]

12 minutes ago, Chris said:

Those few that are somehow undecided that is. 

I think the new definition of "undecided" is "really don't want either".  

And that's more than a few people. However, for voters in most states that are a solid red or blue.....it's a moot point.

It's just the moderates/independents in the toss-up states who are struggling to decide.

[Adam 530]

8 hours ago, Chris said:

but it's also not very helpful for voters.

as if ANY politician has that as a goal.....

its the "smart" play for her, those with Orange-man bad syndrome are gonna eat that stuff up when she takes those digs, he certainly isnt going to hold back very long when those shots get taken( which is funny, an actual shot to the head kept him more civil for a few days), and when he opens up in response, stupid shit like what he said on stage gets put on a constant loop. all of this serves to distract from the fact harris is so light on substance, and really is just as vague as her opponent, and further; whilst all the air time is on poorly trump performed, she can continue doing as few interviews as possible an no one will pay any mind

[Pvt Snowball 44]

10 hours ago, Chris said:

I couldn't believe he brought "people are eating cats" up until I heard him say it on one of the thousand replays the following day. Though I shouldn't be surprised. 

Their entire campaign seems to have been about getting under his skin and causing him to say stupid things. Which isn't hard of course, but it's also not very helpful for voters. Those few that are somehow undecided that is. 

Remember this is the same guy who said using bleach would help with covid come on now this guy you want to lead us 

[Chris 3,218]

5 hours ago, Pvt Snowball said:

come on now this guy you want to lead us 

I support neither.

[Pvt Snowball 44]

2 hours ago, Chris said:

I support neither.

Gotta vote for someone because not voting is just as wrong 

[Hal 553]

18 minutes ago, Pvt Snowball said:

Gotta vote for someone because not voting is just as wrong 

Hold on right there … It is a persons Duty and Right to Vote yes and maybe you should word it that way . But it is Also a persons Right of Choice to Not vote ! Bottom line is … I don’t gotta vote and IF I decide to vote it sure as hell isn’t going to be for a Candidate that has had a Term in the White House to  to show some potential and has shown us nothing , nix , nada !! Just another DEI hire … 

[Chris 3,218]

1 hour ago, Pvt Snowball said:

Gotta vote for someone because not voting is just as wrong 

Everyone has the right to say, "Nope, not voting for either of these clowns." Once again, I'll vote for whatever third party candidate is on the ballot this year. 

If, hypothetically, there were only two choices, I'd vote for neither. Because that's my right. 

[Ann 439]

4 hours ago, Pvt Snowball said:

Gotta vote for someone because not voting is just as wrong 

There is always the option to write in a candidate if you don’t like any of chosen candidates.  I have done this on several occasions, voting for someone I  had absolute faith and trust in to do the right thing for the best interests of the people.

[Pvt Snowball 44]

People who voice their opinions concerns and don't vote really don't want to see change they are ok with the current situation they are in weather you pick a 3rd party or the current ones at least you voted it the one thing our founders got right and people died for.

[Hal 553]

6 minutes ago, Pvt Snowball said:

People who voice their opinions concerns and don't vote really don't want to see change they are ok with the current situation they are in weather you pick a 3rd party or the current ones at least you voted it the one thing our founders got right and people died for.

I’m not going down the “ my Right to Not vote road “ with you . Don’t need to explain the why of it , only to say that I have 2 Government Documents showing I Paid my dues and answer to No one . 
Now , I get what you’re saying , if one doesn’t vote , one can’t complain afterward . I’m good with my decision either way . 

[Adam 530]

On 9/12/2024 at 11:20 PM, Pvt Snowball said:

Remember this is the same guy who said using bleach would help with covid

interesting how a lie, told often enough, becomes "truth".

per the transcripts :

ACTING UNDER SECRETARY BRYAN: "We’re also testing disinfectants readily available.  We’ve tested bleach, we’ve tested isopropyl alcohol on the virus, specifically in saliva or in respiratory fluids.  And I can tell you that bleach will kill the virus in five minutes; isopropyl alcohol will kill the virus in 30 seconds, and that’s with no manipulation, no rubbing — just spraying it on and letting it go.  You rub it and it goes away even faster.  We’re also looking at other disinfectants, specifically looking at the COVID-19 virus in saliva." A paragraph or so before this he had discussed the results of hitting the virus with UV rays, as well as half life of the virus indoors versus outdoors.

THE PRESIDENT:  "Right.  And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute.  One minute.  And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning." In no way is he instructing or advocating the injection of ANY chemical into the body, let alone bleach; he is asking a question to which he does not know an answer...otherwise known as seeking education on a matter.

a reporter then asks the acting under secretary a follow up on if  "the President mentioned the idea of cleaners, like bleach and isopropyl alcohol you mentioned.  There’s no scenario that that could be injected into a person, is there? " the answer which from Mr. Bryan was essentially no, the POTUS then goes on to say: THE PRESIDENT: " It wouldn’t be through injection.  We’re talking about through almost a cleaning, sterilization of an area.  Maybe it works, maybe it doesn’t work.  But it certainly has a big effect if it’s on a stationary object."

is he the smartest in the world? No, but remember, no one knew what this virus was going to do, how it would respond to treatments at that point, and with a Nation looking to you for answers and impatiently wanting to get back to normal, you sure as hell are going to look for any and all possible treatments( im not advocating injecting anything either btw)

Truth over narrativeif more folks subscribed to that, wed have better governance through better informed populace