The reason both leading presidential candidates have favorability ratings under 50% was on full display during last Tuesday’s presidential debate.
Start with former President Donald Trump. Coming into the debate, his job was simple. Inform voters of Vice President Kamala Harris’ radical record and remind them that things were better when he was in office. He had his moments.
Early in the debate, Harris attacked Trump for being too soft on China.
“Everything that she believed three years ago and four years ago is out the window,” he said. “She’s going to my philosophy now. In fact, I was going to send her a MAGA hat.”
His closing statement was also extremely effective. Regarding her many promises, he asked, “Why hasn’t she done it? She’s been there for three and a half years.”
Had Trump been disciplined enough to stick to those themes, he would have easily won the debate. Instead, he allowed Harris to bait him with obviously planned jabs about his rallies and inheritance. Trump followed her right down those rabbit holes, often appearing angry and annoyed. He did repeatedly bring up immigration, crime and the economy. But he should have spent more time bringing up her past policy positions.
Trump missed opportunities, but the debate is unlikely to hurt his standing. Most obviously, the debate moderators actively worked against him. They inaccurately fact-checked him. They aggressively pressed him in follow-ups. They cut him off frequently. In contrast, they generally lobbed beach balls to Harris. When they did ask her a rare tough question — like on her many flip-flops — they didn’t follow-up when she dodged. They didn’t fact-check her, even though she unleashed numerous falsehoods.
If you were scoring the debate on points, ABC’s bias undoubtedly helped Harris. But with persuadable voters, it may have been counterproductive. In The New York Times’ recent poll, more than a quarter of likely voters wanted to know more about Harris. She made it clear during the debate that she isn’t Trump but offered few details on her own agenda. Rhetoric about the “opportunity economy” rings hollow when people just want the opportunity to buy affordable groceries.
She did little to separate herself from the failed policies of the Biden-Harris administration. Talking about her values when asked to explain her shifting positions wasn’t illuminating either. If Harris were leading by 5 points in swing states, avoiding specifics would have made political sense. But she’s not.
Before the debate, the race was a toss-up. After the debate, the race remains a toss-up.
