First Thoughts: Remember, It's Only September.

Three takeaways from the first, and probably only, Harris/Trump debate.

Image by Richard Duijnstee from Pixabay

Warning: This article has some swearing. Worse than that, it features some sarcasm.

This article is divided into three sections. When watching the debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former president Donald Trump this past Tuesday, I took a series of notes of what I thought about each candidate’s performance, and the debate environment itself. Then, I divided all of my notes into these following points. While I make it painfully clear who won the debate (Harris – and it wasn’t close), I add the following caveat: despite her debate performance, and a major endorsement that followed, this election is not set in stone, far from it. Should Democratic voters believe this past Tuesday decided the election, rather than the Tuesday literally called “Election Day,” they may find themselves on November 6 asking what the hell happened.

You all remember the shock you felt nearly eight years ago. If you want to avoid the same feeling again in seven weeks, put the wine bottles back in the cabinet (or wherever you got them from). Instead, pick up your computer, go to mobilize.us and search for volunteer opportunities near you, or find your local campaign office and ask the great people there what you can do to help. Elections are won in small, subtle moves across a period of time, not one big move in one night.

All that being said, here are my three primary takeaways:

Point #1: Stop fucking crying over the moderators for doing their jobs.

This is not a new thing for Republicans. In October 2012, Democratic president Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney met for their second of three presidential debates in Hempstead, New York. More than halfway through this debate, Romney argued that after the Benghazi attack the month prior, President Obama waited two weeks before calling the incident, “an act of terror.” CNN moderator Candy Crowley subsequently corrected Romney and stated that the president did, in fact, call it a terrorist attack the day after it occurred. On September 12, 2012, the president spoke at the White House after the attack and stated, “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.”

Conservative mouthpieces went ballistic. Then-Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) stated, “It’s not the role of the moderator to say, ‘Mr. President, you’re right’ or ‘Mr. Romney, you’re wrong.’” The group, Americans for Limited Government called for CNN to fire Crowley, “for her gross violation of whatever remains of journalistic standards.” Rush Limbaugh said Crowley “committed an act of journalistic terror,” and Tucker Carlson one-upped him by comparing Crowley to John Wilkes Booth.

In the crosshairs of the G.O.P. today are ABC moderators Linsey Davis and David Muir, for doing something even worse: fact-checking their candidate three times! The first time was on abortion. Trump accused certain states of “[having] abortion in the ninth month,” citing one governor who allegedly, “said the baby will be born and we will decide what to do with the baby. In other words, we’ll execute the baby.” At the end of Trump’s spiel, Davis bluntly stated, “There is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it’s born.” Shock of the night: there are no states where homicide is legal.

The second fact-check occurred when Trump stated that in Springfield, Ohio, Haitian immigrants were taking and consuming cats and dogs belonging to town residents. Muir quickly responded by saying, “ABC News did reach out to the city manager [in Springfield]. He told us there have been no credible reports of specific claims of pets being harmed, injured or abused by individuals within the immigrant community.” Indeed, city manager Bryan Heck referred to these claims as, “misinformation.”

Furthermore, Ohio’s Trump-supporting Gov. Mike DeWine (R) stated that there is “‘no evidence’” of widespread pet consumption in Springfield, also saying that “‘This is something that came up on the internet, and the internet can be quite crazy sometimes.’” Hell, even Kimberly Newton – who first alerted her neighbor about the alleged situation before the neighbor went to social media – later conceded, “‘I’m not sure I’m the most credible source … I don’t have any proof.’”

Recently, a bomb threat was made which, according to the city police chief, “targeted City Hall and other buildings in the city, including an elementary school.” The threat, according to Mayor Rob Rue, “‘used hateful language towards immigrants and Haitians in our community,’” but no, it’s the fact-checkers who are in the wrong.

Finally, Trump was immediately called out for lying about the crime rate in the United States. He claimed, “Crime here is up and through the roof. … And it’s happening at levels that nobody thought possible.” Muir then said to Trump, “As you know, the FBI says overall violent crime is coming down in this country.” According to the FBI Quarterly Uniform Crime Report, from January to March 2024, “reported violent crime decreased by 15.2 percent. Murder decreased by 26.4 percent, rape decreased by 25.7 percent, robbery decreased by 17.8 percent, and aggravated assault decreased by 12.5 percent. Reported property crime also decreased by 15.1 percent.” All this pesky data is compared to the same period the year prior.

After the debate, conservatives, as expected, went after the fact-checkers. Former NBC talk show host Megyn Kelly complained, “I am angry at the moderators. I am angry at ABC News. … They are trying to steal this election. … It was three against one on that stage tonight.” She also posted on X, “MORE FACT CHECKING FROM ABC - THIS IS THE WORST ANCHOR PILE-ON I HAVE EVER SEEN.”

Beyond washed-up commentators, Republican politicians – as if on cue – whined about the same thing. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) posted on X, “The moderators might as well be on the DNC payroll. … This is the worst moderated debate in history.” Trump himself piled on as well, saying on Fox News, “ABC took a big hit last night. … They ought to take away their license [as a news organization] for the way they did that [debate]." He later added, “They should fire everybody at ABC Fake News, whose two lightweight 'anchors' have brought disgrace onto the company!”

Politico published an article after the debate featuring one line that I found interesting and serves as the basis for this takeaway. They wrote, “The posture from Trump’s backers on Tuesday stood in contrast to the June debate against President Joe Biden on CNN, which didn’t have any fact checking and left Trump saying he was treated ‘very fairly.’”

Therein lies the problem: Republicans believe they should have the freedom to bullshit their way to the presidency without any pushback. They don’t want someone reminding voters in real time that a statement they made was false, because they believe it hurts their cause, and anyone who dares to do so must be working for the opposition. The only reason the CNN debate was “fair,” was because they waited until after the debate, when people stopped watching, to bring some talking head on to wave his finger at the former president.

The truth is, however, in addition to covering and broadcasting what people say, the job of a moderator or reporter is to tell the public the truth. If a network hosts someone who claims that the earth is flat, the network can broadcast it, but they also have an obligation to inform their viewers that such a statement is incorrect, rather than mislead them into possibly thinking otherwise just because they heard it from someone featured on the news. The first responsibility of any journalist is to inform, not spectate.

Let’s be clear: the media is not your friend. Too many people in the media today value entertainment over informing their viewers. They cover certain politicians in the same way gossip magazines like the Daily Mail or National Enquirer cover celebrities. They treat every election as if it were a sporting event, complete with countless panels of so-called “pundits” and “analysts” with the dumbest takes imaginable; let’s not forget panels of former power players (in this case, campaign “experts”) who haven’t had any relevance or been part of anything successful since the flip phone was invented. They believe they’re the smartest people in the room, that all their predictions and observations are correct, and when you try and call them out for any of this, they clutch their pearls and accuse you of being against the freedom of the press.

That said, despite the media’s many, many flaws that they refuse to own up to, once in a while, they do get it right, as was the case here. Davis and Muir don’t deserve endless praise, but they should be acknowledged for doing what CNN was too scared to do in the June debate: directly countering the former president when he lied to the voters, in other words, doing their basic jobs as journalists.

Point #2: Debates are not rallies.

Given how many people tune politics out until the final weeks of a campaign, the opportunities are limited for candidates to address a large portion of the electorate. One of those opportunities is during party conventions, especially on the last night, where people are interested in seeing the party’s choice give their first speech as the official nominee. Writing and delivering such a speech is a balancing act; you must energize the crowd of party loyalists at the convention, while simultaneously appealing to the group of voters at home who may just be tuning into the election. In other words, it’s not the best idea to articulate your message in a convention the same way you would in a political rally, where crowds are in the hundreds or thousands, rather than millions.

An even better opportunity to reach people is through debates. On Tuesday, more than 67 million people watched the two candidates make their cases. You would expect, in a country where the last election was practically decided by less than 43,000 votes, that extending olive branches to moderates and independents would be the wisest move on a debate stage. Trump appeared to understand this on a few issues. He claimed he had, “nothing to do with Project 2025,” and would not sign a national abortion ban. Both claims are questionable; there are reports of the architects of Project 2025 being, “in regular contact with Trump campaign advisers,” and as president, he did support a federal abortion ban. That said, his current statements do show his understanding of how politically toxic those positions can be, regardless of his sincerity.

Where he deviates from this, however, is when he talks about the January 6 U.S. Capitol riot. He not only says that he encouraged people to march through “peacefully and patriotically,” but he subsequently implies that’s what they did. He states, “nobody on the other side was killed.” He goes on to say that those who rioted on January 6, “have been treated so badly.”

He is later given what is essentially a lay-up from Muir, where the moderator asks, “In the past couple of weeks leading up to this debate, you have said, quote, you lost by a whisker, that you, quote, didn't quite make it, that you came up a little bit short. … Are you now acknowledging that you lost in 2020?” All Trump had to say here is, in some way, “Yes, I lost, but I’m running now because I don’t like the way this country has been run in the last four years and I’m sure I have many people who agree with me.” Instead, he says the following: “No, I don't acknowledge that at all.” He then states, regarding his claims of fraud in that election, “there's so much proof. All you have to do is look at it. … People should never be thinking about an election as fraudulent.”

This has been a problem with Trump since his first run. He adheres to message discipline one minute (Project 2025 and abortion) and then throws it at the wall the next minute (January 6 and the 2020 election). He tries to use talking points his advisers give him to sway skeptical voters, only to revert to the same rhetoric he uses for his rallies that excite the base.

This longstanding problem is not guaranteed to cost him the election (he was president for a reason), but ranting about, “transgender operations on illegal aliens that are in prison” is a shining example of why the ceiling for Trump’s support is lower than it otherwise could be.

Point #3: Defense wins championships. Offense wins elections.

We’ve come a long way since 2016, when former First Lady Michelle Obama insisted at that year’s Democratic convention, “when they go low, we go high.” This year’s convention, and Vice President Harris’ performance on Tuesday, seemed to have finally put that philosophy to bed, and good riddance to it.

For too long, it has been an unspoken political rule that Republicans are allowed to be as aggressive and ruthless as possible. They have free rein to attack their opponents however they please, whether that be calling them soft on crime and defense (even when their opponents are wounded war veterans), questioning military service when their own candidate never saw combat, or admittedly exploiting national tragedies to their advantage. Meanwhile, Democrats are forced to sit back and take such attacks or else risk being perceived as uncivil.

Even though Republicans have obvious weaknesses that can be aggressively exploited, such as bowing down to dictators and not actually wanting to secure the border, Democrats have often appeared too afraid or unable to expose these weaknesses with the degree of pugnacity that’s required, until recently.

At no point, during any prior debate with Trump has an opponent referred to him as “weak” or come close to it. Harris used that term at and about Trump several times on Tuesday. She stated that, “Donald Trump is weak and wrong on national security and foreign policy.” On the issue of Ukraine and NATO, she asked Trump, “why don't you tell the 800,000 Polish Americans right here in Pennsylvania how quickly you would give up for the sake of favor and what you think is a friendship with … a dictator who would eat you for lunch?”

On the Doha agreement, a deal made by the Trump Administration with the Taliban, and the blueprint for the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, Harris stated, “Donald Trump … negotiated one of the weakest deals you can imagine. … The negotiation involved … getting 5,000 … Taliban terrorists released.” These remarks even got Trump to capitulate, conceding, “I got involved with the Taliban.” For the first time in a long time, a Democrat has appeared to put a Republican on defense when it comes to military issues, when usually the opposite occurs, but that was not the only issue where this happened.

On border security, another issue Republicans should not be playing defense on, Harris referenced the bipartisan border bill co-authored and advocated for by conservative Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), endorsed by the Trump-supporting National Border Patrol Council (NBPC), and then killed by Trump and other Republicans because, “he preferred to run on a problem instead of fixing a problem.” By highlighting this situation and connecting it to her experience of prosecuting traffickers at the border, Harris refused to let immigration be a political albatross for her in the same way it was for President Biden, who only brought up the bill and Trump’s actions in the June debate to advocate for fentanyl scanning machines. It also made it funnier when Trump subsequently called for Harris to, “Go down to Washington, D.C. [during the debate] And … sign a bill to close up the border.” Okay, but wouldn’t you just call up House Republicans again and ask them to kill that bill too?

A big reason Tuesday was so refreshing for many Democrats is because it showed the party is no longer running scared from Trump (at least, for now). They finally seem to embrace the approach that he is not an invincible, intimidating, strongman, but weak, incompetent, and most importantly, defensive.

In contrast to the “when they go low, we go high” approach, Harris’ running mate, Gov. Tim Walz (D-Minn.) stated at this year’s convention, “It’s the fourth quarter. We’re down a field goal. But we’re on offense and we’ve got the ball.” If the Democrats continue playing on offense these next 51 days, they can* win this race.

*I said “can,” not “will.” Put the fucking alcohol down, Democrats!