Harris Crushed Trump In The Debate (If Normal Standards Still Apply)

She was more presidential—and more based in reality—but we won't know if that matters until November

By the normal standards of presidential debates, Kamala Harris beat Donald Trump. She spoke more coherently, had more command of policy, and displayed a more presidential temperament. He lied a lot more frequently and egregiously, spread wacky conspiracy theories, and had more stumbles in his answers. She brushed off his attacks, he got rattled by hers. It wasn’t the worst Trump debate performance—I’d pick the first against Biden in 2020—but he was bad, and if it were anyone else, it’d be an unambiguous loss.

Most strikingly, at least in comparison to pre-2016 debates, Harris was more patriotic, speaking up for democracy, freedom, and American allies. Put some of it in a different context, say 2004 or 1988, and it would have been banal.

In 2024 it isn’t, as Donald Trump rejected the basic principle of honoring election results, denigrated the United States, and praised anti-American dictators. He defended the January 6 attackers, and lied about his own criminal conviction. In one weak instance, Trump crowed about a time that Hungary’s Putin-sympathizing leader Viktor Orban—a model of democratic backsliding into authoritarianism—puffed him up with flattery.

Trump also aped Russian propaganda on the Ukraine war, twice responding to a direct question if he thinks it is in America’s interest for Ukraine to win with “I want peace.” He refused to explain how he’d achieve it, except that he’d put Russian president Putin and Ukrainian president Zelensky in a room and get a deal. Even when trying to avoid it, he took a Putin-friendly stance, treating Russia’s aggression and Ukraine’s self-defense as equal. He also touted Russia’s nuclear arsenal and claimed America’s current approach will lead to “World War III,” which is in line with Russia’s frequent attempts at nuclear extortion.

And then there was the xenophobic lie about immigrants abducting and eating people’s pets in Springfield, Ohio. Trump presumably picked it up from the Online Right, which has been pushing that bigoted nonsense for the last few days. His vice presidential nominee JD Vance, himself an active member of the Online Right, had been spreading the lie, and recently admitted he knows it might not be true but continues doing it anyway, encouraging followers to keep sharing “the cat memes.” After Trump said people are eating cats and dogs, moderator David Muir told viewers that ABC looked into the claim and according to Springfield’s city manager, there’s no evidence of it happening at all.

All of that amounts to a bad debate by traditional American standards. The standards have eroded, yes, but that doesn’t mean we should forget them. And according to those standards, Harris defending the Constitution, hitting core campaign themes on abortion rights and rule of law, taking NATO’s side against Russia, and citing statistics that are connected to factual reality amounted to success.

The debate was closer by both the long-running double standard that lowers the bar just for Trump, and by the traditional grading curve that takes the perspective of a campaign strategist and judges each candidate by what they “needed to do.”

To that extent, Donald Trump did okay. He was more coherent than he has been in recent interviews and rally appearances, staying on topic more often (again, low bar). He said “inflation” and “the border” a lot, bringing attention to his electorally strongest issues. He hit an apparently pre-planned talking point about wanting nothing more on abortion than letting each state decide, and I’m not sure who that works on, but he got it in twice. 

Less conventionally, Trump executed his anti-truth bludgeoning strategy well enough, confidently asserting so many falsehoods that few viewers could catch them all, and neither Harris nor the moderators tried to call most of them out. He did the “accuse your enemy of what you’re doing” move, calling vice presidential nominee Tim Walz extreme, and lying that the Justice Department he vows to weaponize was weaponized against him. He whatabouted January 6, mostly trying to change the subject to something about Biden and Harris, except for when he tried to blame the insurrection he incited on Nancy Pelosi.

After two very close presidential elections, and with pre-debate polls showing a virtual tie, it’s undeniable that a large swath of America finds that appealing. And millions more will go along with it no matter what. Combined, they’re approximately 40 percent of voters, and I doubt Trump did anything in the debate to lose them.

Millions of anti-Trump voters are similarly locked in. They would’ve voted for Biden, and will definitely vote for Harris. Trump has been at the center of U.S. politics and getting saturation coverage for almost a decade now. Just about everyone knows if they’re into him or not.

That means most undecided voters are ultimately undecided about Harris. Many Americans who still don’t know how they’re voting, or if they’re voting, don’t choose based on platforms. The Republican and Democratic policy programs are different enough, including on high stakes issues, that most who prioritize policy are already committed.

The remaining voters, the ones who will decide the election, tend to vote based on vibes. Which candidate would you like to have a beer (or otherwise hang out) with? Who would you rather see on your screens for four years? Which one seems strong?

For them, Harris needed to look like she belonged, that she knows what she’s doing, and can handle the job of president, including that she can hold her own with aggressive men. I thought she did.

But I’m not an undecided voter. I think Trump’s whiny ranting is the opposite of strength, and that his post-2020 election coup attempt is disqualifying. I won’t claim to know the mindset of someone tuning in to the election for the first time, or who thinks “Trump or Harris (or neither)” is a tough call. I expect the election to be close, and don’t know if anything approaching normal political standards will win out.

Yet last night, it seemed like they might.