Trump was, as expected, unable to deviate from his usual script. His inability to adapt or take advice was clear. This debate marked his second chance to "seal the deal," the first being his meandering 90-minute speech at the Republican National Convention. Those who had hoped for a change or an awakening after his near-death experience were let down.
Harris dodged many of the moderators’ questions, focusing instead on presenting herself as a reasonable moderate while keeping the heat on Trump. Her goal wasn’t to better inform the public about who she is what she will accomplish but to define her opponent while avoiding harm herself. Trump tried to expose her past and present inconsistencies, but his points were lost in his usual rambling. Harris, on the other hand, maintained the image she wanted to project rather than revealing her true beliefs and acting as though she were the challenger to an incumbent. Even Bernie Sanders recently admitted that she’s a solid progressive, only backpedaling to win the election.
The ABC moderators covered a broad range of topics but stumbled by fact-checking Trump extensively while overlooking Harris’s false claims. Moderators should stay out of this tangled web. Trump’s supporters, upset by this bias, should blame Trump and his team for not having anticipated the obvious and preparing accordingly instead of complaining afterward. Complaints only signal weakness.
Most viewers of the debate were entrenched partisans, watching to see their side score points. Harris will solidify her base, while Trump’s base support has likely hit its ceiling. This could help Harris drive turnout, especially after the lack of enthusiasm for Biden.
But what really matters is how undecided voters in key battleground states were affected. Though small in number, they will determine the election outcome. Trump needed to speak directly to them but instead treated the debate like one of his rallies, missing the moment to stay on message. He could have won over disillusioned Nikki Haley supporters by humbly addressing their concerns, but his pride prevents him from doing so.
Harris had more to gain. Undecided voters weren’t necessarily looking for policy specifics; they wanted to see if Harris was competent and rational. She dispelled fears of being unfit for office, likely giving some undecided voters the green light to support her.
We often exaggerate the importance of these debates—it’s like one game in a long season, but a crucial one. Harris did enough to reassure some undecided voters, and a slight polling bounce could follow, though it’s unclear if it will make a significant difference.
Back to the title of this post—Searching for Leadership. Neither candidate offers the leadership that can inspire or unite us. Instead, we face another four years of division and strife, no matter who wins. America is desperate for a president who speaks truthfully about our shared heritage, who can outline a vision for peace and prosperity, and who humbly asks for our help in this endeavor. We need someone who can transcend the empty rhetoric and partisan squabbles and inspire us to work toward the common good. But that leader is nowhere to be found. The search continues, and so does our frustration—lost in a political system that no longer serves the people, but rather perpetuates the divisions it should heal.
****
DISTRIBUTION: Liberty Takes Effort shifted its distribution from social media to email delivery via Substack as a Newsletter. If you would like to receive distribution, please email me at libertytakeseffort@gmail.com To see archived blog posts since 2014 visit www.libertytakeseffort.com.
DISCLAIMER: The entire content of this website and newsletter are based solely upon the opinions and thoughts of the author unless otherwise noted. It is not considered advice for action by readers in any realm of human activity. Its purpose is to stimulate discussion on topics of interest to readers to further inform the public square. Use of any information on this site is at the sole choice and risk of the reader.