Last night was the much-anticipated presidential debate between incumbent vice president Kamala Harris and former president Donald Trump. There was no live audience, but the bashing and accusations, one against the other, were all the same.
Trump called Kamala a Marxist. Kamala called Trump a liar. Kamala said Trump is for America’s wealthiest. Trump said Kamala is for killing babies at term. Trump said Kamala “wants to do transgender operations on illegal aliens in prison.” And Kamala said Trump is simply a disgrace.
Of course, they went head-to-head on the normal issues: the economy, tariffs, abortion, China, fracking, policing in America, January 6, foreign policy, and—eating cats!? Not so normal.
If you didn’t watch the debate, if you’re not on social media, or if you didn’t receive memes from your family group chat, let me explain. First, Kamala baited Trump on a question about his campaign rallies.
It got under his skin. He fell for it. Which then led him into a long rant about immigrants, which brings us back to the cat thing. Because in his words, immigrants are crossing the border, settling in Ohio, and stealing—and eating—our pets.
The moderator fact-checked him: “We have talked to the city manager of Springfield, and there are no credible reports of pets being taken and eaten.” To which Trump responded: “But I saw it on television!”
All Kamala needed to do was stand there and smile. As the debate went on, Trump reaffirmed that he thinks he won the 2020 election; He doubled down on the idea that doctors are executing babies after they’re born; and he referred to the January 6 rioters as “we.” He also quoted Hungarian autocrat Viktor Orbán. And again, all Kamala needed to do was stand there and keep smiling.
So what does it all mean? What impact will it have? Will independent voters, or swing-state voters, change their mind based on Kamala and Trump’s performance? Did Kamala clarify her policy positions and provide the substance that voters want to hear from her other than “joy” and “vibes”? Did the muted mics limit Trump’s abrasive demeanor? And most importantly, who won the debate? The answer seems pretty clear.
To discuss all this and more is Free Press contributor and opinion editor at Newsweek, Batya Ungar-Sargon; contributing writer at The Week, Newsweek, and Slate, David Faris; and Free Press writer and editor Peter Savodnik.
If you liked what you heard from Honestly, the best way to support us is to go to TheFP.com and become a Free Press subscriber today.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Hi,
Swing voter here. Yes we’re very real. It’s easy when you don’t like either person. I think a big thing thats being missed in the critique of Trump is that its been eight years. He’s highly polarizing and we all already know what he’s like. I think the debate was much more important for Kamala Harris to introduce herself than for Trump to magically stop being a loose cannon.
It was a good night for Kamala since Trump couldn’t stay on task well enough to paint her as a far left progressive. That being said anyone who would be off put by Trump’s style and his total absence of expertise in his presentation is already a Kamala voter at this point since again we’ve met Trump before and he’s never changed.
I don’t think this debate will move the polls. Trump showed zero personal growth after being shot and my opinion of him remains the same. Kamala didn’t do enough to convince me that she isn’t pretending to be moderate in order to get elected and go back on her word.
I’m still voting for Trump as the lesser of two evils. Kamala didn’t successfully pin the immigration problem on Republicans. I’m libertarian and don’t like socialist price controls or government hand outs like debt cancellation and money for a house.
Unfortunately for Kamala the game isn’t to make Trump look bad. It’s to convince the moderates that she is one of us, and I don’t think she has enough time to do that. So if i’m forced to pick an extreme, its the one to the right currently.
Too bad they didn’t nominate Shapiro
I thought the issues in Springfield, OH were raised by residents in a public meeting. Maybe those were then shared on social media, but that doesn't mean they aren't true. Why were these podcast participants, especially Michael and David, so dismissive of those issues that, as far as I know, were brought out by real people who have witnessed those events. Is there some evidence it was all made up, if so, tell us. Don't just quote the city official who doesn't know anything.