| Submit your comments on this article | |||
| Home Front: Politix | |||
| Three on one. Who really won the Trump and Harris debates | |||
| 2024-09-12 | |||
| Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited. by Malek Dudakov
Compared to the June debates, there was a palpable sense that Democrats were going all out to defeat Trump. The Trump-Biden debate on CNN was surprisingly well-organized — the host was fair and the questions were polite. That certainly can't be said about the latest debate. The ABC moderators, on whose air they were broadcast, were too obviously playing along with Harris. They tried to fact-check any of Trump's statements in real time. At the same time, many of Harris's outright false comments went unnoticed and "fact-checked." Under these conditions, Trump had to debate three people at once: Harris and both hosts. In general, such a biased attitude was predicted earlier. After all, ABC's media agenda is already 93% positive towards Harris and 100% negative towards Trump. But the latter could have hoped that the moderators would still try to maintain the illusion of objectivity. In the end, this did not happen. Well, Harris tried to constantly press Trump, presenting herself as an “aggressive prosecutor” who is trying to punish a “criminal.” That’s how her campaign likes to call Trump, even though the latter has managed to successfully fight off judicial pressure from Democratic prosecutors. During the debates, Trump was forced to constantly respond to Harris' accusations that he was a threat to democracy in the United States. In turn, Trump himself tried to present Harris as responsible for all the crises that the US is currently facing. Like the rise in inflation, the growth of unemployment in recent months, the influx of migrants, or the rampant crime. And on the external frontier – with the unresolved Middle East crisis and the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. Kamala was very nervous and clearly overacted her role. She also constantly made very strange faces in response to any attacks from Trump. But what cannot be denied is that Harris really made an effort and memorized the speech instructions. True, she often answered them inappropriately and not to the questions asked by the hosts.
In general, the thread of the discussion should have been around Trump’s “radicalism,” and not the failures of the Democrats in recent years or the figure of Harris. This strategy was partly implemented. Trump had to justify himself more often than Harris. And it was clear that he was even surprised by the pressure from Harris that he had to face. Harris was keen to scare voters with the “horrors” that would await them if Trump won. The tariffs he promised would lead to higher inflation, abortion would be banned, and attacks on ethnic and sexual minorities would intensify. US opponents around the world would strengthen their positions, and Russia would gain the upper hand over Ukraine. Harris could not offer any reform plan of her own, and she did not want to. Her entire speech was based on the negative – criticism of Trump. And the latter tried to remind Americans how much worse their lives had become during the four years that the Democrats had been in power. And Trump assured voters that with Harris as president, things inside the US would get even worse than they are now. There were even some completely ridiculous moments when the candidates began to seriously measure each other by the size of the rallies they were holding. Both Trump and Harris are holding multi-thousand rallies of their supporters. However, on the eve of the debates, a scandal broke out about Harris deliberately transporting the same volunteers to her rallies on buses. Trump was still proud of the fact that he survived the assassination attempt. And he indirectly blamed Harris and other Democrats for what happened, who turned the state machine against him. Kamala could only laugh nervously in response. She similarly tried to ignore any questions about why Harris changed her views so often. She was for accepting migrants, now she was supposedly against it. She used to support fracking, the extraction of shale oil and gas, now she apparently doesn’t. But overall, Harris was more successful in achieving what she wanted — she avoided the silly blunders and mistakes that she often makes during public appearances. Kamala, on the other hand, was able to prevent Trump from achieving the confident victory he achieved in the June debate with Biden. That doesn't mean Harris won. It was a draw, really. But for the Democrats, even this scenario is not the worst. After all, they were preparing for the worst - that Trump would steamroll Harris. In the end, through their tricks, memorized answers and endless bickering, as well as a refusal to answer questions seriously, they managed to partially hide the weaknesses of Harris's candidacy. After the fact, scandals began to flare up about Harris allegedly using an earpiece during the debates, into which she was prompted with answers. Therefore, she did not suffer from her usual tongue-tiedness. Such dishonest tricks are quite in the spirit of Democrats who are trying to squeeze the maximum out of the debates for themselves and their presidential campaign. It was not for nothing that Harris officially supported Taylor Swift immediately after the event. The singer did not perform at the Democratic Party convention and only posted an appeal on social networks calling for voting for Kamala. But this was done now, in order to somehow maximize the effect of the debates. In a fit of elation, Harris's campaign immediately proposed holding another debate. However, it is not a given that they will take place, given the Trump campaign's obvious dissatisfaction with the moderators' bias. Choosing a new venue will not be easy. This has dealt a severe blow to the reputation of the institution of presidential debates, whose future remains unclear. The question of the debates' audience and their effect on the presidential race also remains open. The June debates literally derailed Biden's presidential campaign. Don't expect the same effect now. Fewer and fewer Americans are watching the debates. In 2016, the audience for the Trump-Clinton debate exceeded 80 million. In 2020, 70 million watched the Trump-Biden debate. But this year, the debates attracted only 50-60 million viewers — only one-fifth of the total number of American adults of 260 million.
If Harris had lost the debates in a landslide, her campaign would have been on the verge of collapse. The Democrats managed to avoid that. But whether they can regain the initiative now is still in question. Harris did not lose the debates – but she did not win either. So in the end, it may turn out that the effect of the debates on the election results will be insignificant. Related: Presidential debate 09/11/2024 Did Kamala Harris Wear Audio Earrings During Presidential Debate? All You Need To Know Presidential debate 09/11/2024 Taylor Swift Endorses Kamala Harris For President After Debate: ‘i've Made My Choice' Presidential debate 09/11/2024 Anti-Israel protesters rally outside US presidential debate venue in Philadelphia | |||
| Posted by:badanov |
| #4 Most folks have already made up their minds and will vote for their "corner" |
| Posted by: crazyhorse 2024-09-12 23:33 |
| #3 Harris won, IMO. She managed to avoid actually saying anything, which was her top priority. She was given a pass on her lies. Trump looked tired and frustrated and disorganized ... worn down by it all. And was unable to even get his true statements accepted as true. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2024-09-12 14:24 |
| #2 I enjoyed the Ross Perot and Bill Clinton event. |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2024-09-12 13:41 |
| #1 The last debate I watched was between JFK and Nixon. Debate qualities have gone way downhill since then. |
| Posted by: Gromble+Dribble4342 2024-09-12 02:49 |