Hey,
It has been a very, very, long couple of days and I’ve got to get on a plane. Also, debate punditry has a shelf-life of unpasteurized dairy on a hot day. So, I’ll be very brief.
Kamala Harris won last night. I don’t see how that’s refutable. I don’t even see a single metric by which one could say otherwise. She beat the expectations set for her by her own campaign, by her fans, and by her critics. She executed her strategy to bait Donald Trump very successfully. She won among the focus groups. The sober analysts on Fox said she won.
Even the people claiming it was three on one because the moderators were in the tank are still implicitly conceding that she won. They just think it was unfair because Harris wasn’t fact-checked the way Trump was—which is true. Though not all such complaints have equal weight. Arguing that “if only Trump had been allowed to spread lies about dark and dusky immigrants stealing cats and dogs to eat them uncorrected he’d have won!” is not a blockbuster argument. On the other hand, the moderators’ pushback on Trump’s abortion claims and a few other assertions fairly came across as bias.
I particularly find all the “rigged” talk a good sign Harris won. And the claim that ABC News gave Harris the answers in advance is pretty hilarious. Why would she dodge the very first question if she knew it was coming? Also, who seriously believes that any of those questions were surprises? If you think anyone needed to be tipped off to know that questions about … checks notes … abortion and the economy were coming, then you should probably just stop commenting on politics.
I’m fine with beating up on the moderators—even if I find the “debate” more exhausting than enraging (Ronald Reagan faced a hostile press and debate moderators and won 49 states). But if you’re going to, you should probably follow Charlie Cooke’s example and first concede that Trump lost because he performed terribly. The moderators didn’t make Trump look and sound like a tired, angry, narcissistic fabulist. They didn’t make Trump take Harris’ bait on crowd sizes or defend January 6, or trot out his election denial again.
Still, there are three reasons the moderators should have shown more restraint and care. First, because that’s the job. But complaints about that are easy to find all over the place. Second, stepping out of their lanes is bad for the reputations of ABC News and the moderators themselves.
The third reason is less important objectively, but it’s something a lot of anti-Trump folks need to hear. It doesn’t work. Harris would be better off today if the moderators had bent over backward in Trump’s favor (and in one important way they arguably did—they let Trump respond to Harris more than they let Harris respond to Trump) or played it more straight. The debate over the moderators muddies Harris’ victory. It gives lots of people something else to gripe, whine, and chatter about other than the substance of the debate.
This is a small example of a larger problem. One of the things that has sustained Trump’s popularity on the right is the corner-cutting of those out to take him down. Want to indict him? Fine. Do it right. Want to impeach him? Great. Do it right. Want to fact check him, criticize him, oppose him? Fantastic, go for it. But follow the rules. Don’t mint “Trump law,” or misquote him, or anything else like that. Why? Trump does enough terrible things and says enough stupid stuff that there’s literally no need to embellish or make up charges against him. When newspapers, networks, prosecutors, legislators, and others take liberties in their quest to take him down, it helps him.
In other words, trying to “get Trump” by any means necessary is simply counterproductive, even if you think he deserves everything and anything he gets. Deserve’s got nothing to do with it.
I want to be clear: I think people should follow the rules because rules matter. I think the best way to play a positive role isn’t to “use your influence” but to play the role you’ve chosen or been assigned.
But even if you think all’s fair or the rules and norms should be damned, just keep in mind that most of you suck at winging this stuff and end up boosting Trump or otherwise play into his hands.
To be continued.
Please note that we at The Dispatch hold ourselves, our work, and our commenters to a higher standard than other places on the internet. We welcome comments that foster genuine debate or discussion—including comments critical of us or our work—but responses that include ad hominem attacks on fellow Dispatch members or are intended to stoke fear and anger may be moderated.