Agree that Trump overall did poorly. Disagree on the behavior of the debate moderators. In my mind a moderator should not be inserting themselves into the debate by adding their interpretation of rather they think a comment made by one of the speakers is sarcasm, and even worse, by only fact checking one of the debaters. ABC clearly performed an assist for Harris and a hit job on Trump. Just my opinion.
I agree with you! It was totally unprofessional of them to correct him on the abortion thing and on the pet eating thing. That was not their job…they should have given Kamala the opportunity to reply !
Well written Gerald. And succinctly you put this, "As a society, we have mostly lost the ability to even understand why someone holds a belief contrary to our own, much less have the capability to argue their case."
Yeah it would have been nice if they pressed her on a few answers like the flip flopping on issues or maybe "so what ARE your values when it comes to fracking'?
Trump was Trump. Not much more needs to be said. You either like his underlying policy's so much better than the Democrat version and support him, or you don't.
Trump started OK but was unable to focus on anything after 1/3 into the debate to counter her attacks.
His performance in the first debate wasn't all that good, he was just overshadowed by Biden's disastrous performance and able to control his emotions better. The contrast was what made him look so much better in that one.
He did present a decent closing statement that was likely rehearsed and was mostly accurate.
Harris followed instructions and said enough to get under his skin. She had some help from the moderators but probably could have done it by herself. Once that started, we're off to the races. She said little of substance and also said a lot of things that were simply untrue without any fact checking by the moderators. She's true to her beliefs, except when she's not.
That doesn't change much if you can look beyond the showbiz part of this. I suspect all but the fanatics on both sides are holding their noses to vote for their choice because they see the other as so bad. Not because they really like their choice.
All I can say is that I was super frustrated that we could've had Bobby Kennedy up there running circles around Harris with his encyclopedic knowledge of history and clear sensible policies for the future, the only candidate that stood up to the covid madness and this administration's continued attack on our first amendment, neither topic of which the moderators asked.
We gave up a missed opportunity as country. How is it possible that we are stuck with two awful choices AGAIN! I look at Brazil and other countries where the people are out in droves protesting their government's policies and I hope that when the time comes, Americans remember the principles our country was founded on and hold our next elected administration accountable for the decisions they are going to make. I heard Matt Taibi repeat an old Russian saying, "Hoped for more, got what I expected."
Trump does appear to be unhinged, and maybe because he was fuming…I hope that the two intelligent people on his team, Kennedy and Gabbard will rein him in. They are both very well versed in the world of politics, and that they are on his team makes me think that he has some good ideas. Ending the war in Ukraine, pushing against the trans movement that’s taking over , for example. He is his own worst enemy, however.
His ease in being sidetracked reminds me of a little known, early twentieth century pitcher, Rube Waddell, who was a great pitcher but whose eccentricities strongly reinforced the public's perception that left handers are flakey.
If Waddell was pitching and a fire engine went roaring by the ballpark, Waddell would take off running from the pitcher's mound, run out of the ballpark and chase the fire engine. He could be just as distracted while pitching if he looked into the opposition team's dugout, where the players would be waiting with rubber snakes which they would hold up, dangle, and wave at Waddell.
Everyone who has studied Waddell concludes that he may have been mildly retarded and that it's extremely probable he had what would now be diagnosed as severe ADD. Trump's going to pieces last night was certainly goaded by the anchors' bias but I think more by the fact that not only was Harris not rattled by him, she showed amusement and contempt for him.
I'm jarred all the way around. I think Harris is an awful person whom I do not believe is patriotic. But Trump! What went wrong there? Has his narcissism so separated him from reality that he expected the anchors and Harris would melt before his rage? How could such a smart man not realize that the way to cope with the fusillade was not to double down, not to let himself make his customary, violent gestures, but to slow down, pause, be conversational. A soft answer turns away wrath. In a situation like Trump's, it also forces his antagonists to drop back emotionally and listen to him. In turn, that might have enabled Trump to relax, and to seem mature, not like a guilty adolescent who is hoping to jive his way out of a mess, or like Rube Waddell, who is straining to catch up with a fire truck.
One of Trump's selling points has been his toughness, his stability in the face of a crisis. I hate to write the following, but in last night's debate, it was Harris who came off as presidential.
Yes, she did, but they never asked her the tough questions on freedom of speech ,where she is terrible, or on the trans ideology where she is also terrible , as is Walz!
Oh, absolutely. There was so much they could have asked her about which they did not, China, Iran, Ukraine, the housing crisis, a lot more. One obvious thing she could have been asked about on the eve of September 11 is the intelligence agencies' uniform belief that God knows how many Muslim terrorists - in - waiting have come into the country from Mexico in the last three and a half years.
It's easy to appear Presidential when you're treated as though you're a Miss America contestant who is being asked some generic citizenship question.
I was terrified in public speaking class in the 1970's during our debate section. I learned a lot, especially that I don't communicate well on my feet.
I also learned enough to wonder if we will ever see a good, solid, well- reasoned debate ever again between presidential opponents. I don't like Harris's smirking, Jr. High, mean girl's antics anymore than I like Trump's blustery train of thought and exaggeration.
However, Trump never quits. He doesn't run. Yes, he needs to listen to his advisors on how to up end his debate opponents. But he's fighting for more than a debate win, in my opinion. He's not likely to change that aspect of himself. I admire that kind of spine.
Excellent piece. The moderators did perform less ‘fact checking’ of Harris, likely because she didn’t say anything as remotely unhinged as her opponent. Political debates might feature spin, obfuscation and sophistry, but blatant lies and demagoguery ought to be challenged. That the moderators interjected to anchor the conversation in reality is not bias, but it does speak to the way ‘Trumpism’ has lowered the standard of political debate and, sadly, how inured we have become to his outlandish statements and behaviour.
Exactly, but did they fact check her? The well known “ fact “ that Trump said of the Charlottesville incident “ there were good people on both sides” has been twisted . She repeated it as fact , and a couple of times attributed to him things he had not said. There was no fact checking on that. Granted , his lies were more obvious and more outrageous !
You're right, and they let many exaggerations and misrepresentations go on both sides, as they should. But is it responsible to allow a candidate to say, on national television, that neonatal babies are being executed by Democrats, and dogs/cats eaten by Haitian immigrants, without calling it out? And is calling it out biased?
Calling it out is certainly not biased at all! Lies should not go unchecked! The only thing I am trying to say is that the job of a moderator is to ask questions and let the debaters answer them! Moderators should not join in on the debate no matter how outrageous one or the other is being! There are rules to follow in any debate, and the moderators broke the rules , which made them look biased. I’m no fan of Trump , and he did a terrible job, but the moderators should have let Kamala answer some of the blatant lies , which she could have done much better! Some of her comments were also not true , or stretched the truth, and she was never fact checked.
Why did they not have a question for her on her stance freedom of speech? Or her stand on trans ideology?
I guess we have a difference of opinion on the role of a moderator. Perhaps we can agree that it is a shame they needed to intervene at all, but as per a comment below 'Trump was Trump'.
When I write about transgender issues or free speech on campus I get accused by liberals of being a right winger. When I pass along my analysis for last night’s debate, some conservatives think it is anti-Trump. As I often say, if someone agrees with everything I have written, they haven’t read all my articles. Disagreeing with someone is fine. Express why. Give and take. But if you do not like that type of engagement, one that does not just echo what you already believe, then you are indeed better off unsubscribing.
People want echo chambers that confirm everything they believe. Deviation is blasphemy. They have closed minds and won’t consider alternative ideas or arguments. Especially when presented with facts.
Really ? Please give some examples? Does everyone agree with everything?If so, it would be a very boring world or maybe even a totalitarian one where everyone must agree on all things.
I agree the moderators could have been better but it still falls on him. He knew going into an ABC debate that Harris had “home field advantage.”
Agree that Trump overall did poorly. Disagree on the behavior of the debate moderators. In my mind a moderator should not be inserting themselves into the debate by adding their interpretation of rather they think a comment made by one of the speakers is sarcasm, and even worse, by only fact checking one of the debaters. ABC clearly performed an assist for Harris and a hit job on Trump. Just my opinion.
I agree with you! It was totally unprofessional of them to correct him on the abortion thing and on the pet eating thing. That was not their job…they should have given Kamala the opportunity to reply !
Agree with you totally. ABC was clearly biased and indeed did a hit job on Trump.
Disagree both. Trump screwed it up all on his own. And now the "sore losering" continues.
Troll.
Great summary.
I very much agree with you that "presidential debates are not real debates." And also that "staying on message is key."
Thank you for your neutral and spot on commentary.
He did poorly, definitely. Evidence he won the last debate because of opponent weakness, not his strength.
Well written Gerald. And succinctly you put this, "As a society, we have mostly lost the ability to even understand why someone holds a belief contrary to our own, much less have the capability to argue their case."
Yeah it would have been nice if they pressed her on a few answers like the flip flopping on issues or maybe "so what ARE your values when it comes to fracking'?
He had that opportunity
They never asked her about her stand in free speech. She is not good on that critical issue !
Nor did they ask about gender ideology, where she is quite radical.
They didn’t want to upset her, although I think there were a few somewhat hard balls.
Oh they asked a few good questions but she never answered them really
Trump was Trump. Not much more needs to be said. You either like his underlying policy's so much better than the Democrat version and support him, or you don't.
Trump started OK but was unable to focus on anything after 1/3 into the debate to counter her attacks.
His performance in the first debate wasn't all that good, he was just overshadowed by Biden's disastrous performance and able to control his emotions better. The contrast was what made him look so much better in that one.
He did present a decent closing statement that was likely rehearsed and was mostly accurate.
Harris followed instructions and said enough to get under his skin. She had some help from the moderators but probably could have done it by herself. Once that started, we're off to the races. She said little of substance and also said a lot of things that were simply untrue without any fact checking by the moderators. She's true to her beliefs, except when she's not.
That doesn't change much if you can look beyond the showbiz part of this. I suspect all but the fanatics on both sides are holding their noses to vote for their choice because they see the other as so bad. Not because they really like their choice.
Very well said!
Will the MSM fact check bloodbath, Charlottesville, Project 2025 things she said?
There were definitely some falsehoods on her part, but they weren’t noticed.
Cause if you say it over and over people believe it even if its a lie
I sadly agree with you! As an independent I will vote for Trump, but I do wish he would reel in the rants!
All I can say is that I was super frustrated that we could've had Bobby Kennedy up there running circles around Harris with his encyclopedic knowledge of history and clear sensible policies for the future, the only candidate that stood up to the covid madness and this administration's continued attack on our first amendment, neither topic of which the moderators asked.
We gave up a missed opportunity as country. How is it possible that we are stuck with two awful choices AGAIN! I look at Brazil and other countries where the people are out in droves protesting their government's policies and I hope that when the time comes, Americans remember the principles our country was founded on and hold our next elected administration accountable for the decisions they are going to make. I heard Matt Taibi repeat an old Russian saying, "Hoped for more, got what I expected."
Great piece Gerald. Regardless of biased moderators, Trump has never been and never will be capable of discipline and focus.
Trump does appear to be unhinged, and maybe because he was fuming…I hope that the two intelligent people on his team, Kennedy and Gabbard will rein him in. They are both very well versed in the world of politics, and that they are on his team makes me think that he has some good ideas. Ending the war in Ukraine, pushing against the trans movement that’s taking over , for example. He is his own worst enemy, however.
His ease in being sidetracked reminds me of a little known, early twentieth century pitcher, Rube Waddell, who was a great pitcher but whose eccentricities strongly reinforced the public's perception that left handers are flakey.
If Waddell was pitching and a fire engine went roaring by the ballpark, Waddell would take off running from the pitcher's mound, run out of the ballpark and chase the fire engine. He could be just as distracted while pitching if he looked into the opposition team's dugout, where the players would be waiting with rubber snakes which they would hold up, dangle, and wave at Waddell.
Everyone who has studied Waddell concludes that he may have been mildly retarded and that it's extremely probable he had what would now be diagnosed as severe ADD. Trump's going to pieces last night was certainly goaded by the anchors' bias but I think more by the fact that not only was Harris not rattled by him, she showed amusement and contempt for him.
I'm jarred all the way around. I think Harris is an awful person whom I do not believe is patriotic. But Trump! What went wrong there? Has his narcissism so separated him from reality that he expected the anchors and Harris would melt before his rage? How could such a smart man not realize that the way to cope with the fusillade was not to double down, not to let himself make his customary, violent gestures, but to slow down, pause, be conversational. A soft answer turns away wrath. In a situation like Trump's, it also forces his antagonists to drop back emotionally and listen to him. In turn, that might have enabled Trump to relax, and to seem mature, not like a guilty adolescent who is hoping to jive his way out of a mess, or like Rube Waddell, who is straining to catch up with a fire truck.
One of Trump's selling points has been his toughness, his stability in the face of a crisis. I hate to write the following, but in last night's debate, it was Harris who came off as presidential.
Yes, she did, but they never asked her the tough questions on freedom of speech ,where she is terrible, or on the trans ideology where she is also terrible , as is Walz!
Oh, absolutely. There was so much they could have asked her about which they did not, China, Iran, Ukraine, the housing crisis, a lot more. One obvious thing she could have been asked about on the eve of September 11 is the intelligence agencies' uniform belief that God knows how many Muslim terrorists - in - waiting have come into the country from Mexico in the last three and a half years.
It's easy to appear Presidential when you're treated as though you're a Miss America contestant who is being asked some generic citizenship question.
I was terrified in public speaking class in the 1970's during our debate section. I learned a lot, especially that I don't communicate well on my feet.
I also learned enough to wonder if we will ever see a good, solid, well- reasoned debate ever again between presidential opponents. I don't like Harris's smirking, Jr. High, mean girl's antics anymore than I like Trump's blustery train of thought and exaggeration.
However, Trump never quits. He doesn't run. Yes, he needs to listen to his advisors on how to up end his debate opponents. But he's fighting for more than a debate win, in my opinion. He's not likely to change that aspect of himself. I admire that kind of spine.
Excellent piece. The moderators did perform less ‘fact checking’ of Harris, likely because she didn’t say anything as remotely unhinged as her opponent. Political debates might feature spin, obfuscation and sophistry, but blatant lies and demagoguery ought to be challenged. That the moderators interjected to anchor the conversation in reality is not bias, but it does speak to the way ‘Trumpism’ has lowered the standard of political debate and, sadly, how inured we have become to his outlandish statements and behaviour.
Moderators should first provide candidates with a chance to fact-check their opponent for themselves.
The moderators didn’t have to lower themselves because of trumpism! It was uncalled for and showed their bias…even though he lied !
'Fact checking' applies to both candidates, it is not biased.
Exactly, but did they fact check her? The well known “ fact “ that Trump said of the Charlottesville incident “ there were good people on both sides” has been twisted . She repeated it as fact , and a couple of times attributed to him things he had not said. There was no fact checking on that. Granted , his lies were more obvious and more outrageous !
You're right, and they let many exaggerations and misrepresentations go on both sides, as they should. But is it responsible to allow a candidate to say, on national television, that neonatal babies are being executed by Democrats, and dogs/cats eaten by Haitian immigrants, without calling it out? And is calling it out biased?
Calling it out is certainly not biased at all! Lies should not go unchecked! The only thing I am trying to say is that the job of a moderator is to ask questions and let the debaters answer them! Moderators should not join in on the debate no matter how outrageous one or the other is being! There are rules to follow in any debate, and the moderators broke the rules , which made them look biased. I’m no fan of Trump , and he did a terrible job, but the moderators should have let Kamala answer some of the blatant lies , which she could have done much better! Some of her comments were also not true , or stretched the truth, and she was never fact checked.
Why did they not have a question for her on her stance freedom of speech? Or her stand on trans ideology?
I guess we have a difference of opinion on the role of a moderator. Perhaps we can agree that it is a shame they needed to intervene at all, but as per a comment below 'Trump was Trump'.
I thought Trump was going to go into cardiac arrest ….
Made for entertaining tv - but politically-for me-didn’t secure my vote either way…
I agree with your assessment of the network questioning-but kinda expected it from ABC.
Have just unsubscribed to Posner. He is clearly biased.
When I write about transgender issues or free speech on campus I get accused by liberals of being a right winger. When I pass along my analysis for last night’s debate, some conservatives think it is anti-Trump. As I often say, if someone agrees with everything I have written, they haven’t read all my articles. Disagreeing with someone is fine. Express why. Give and take. But if you do not like that type of engagement, one that does not just echo what you already believe, then you are indeed better off unsubscribing.
Absolutely right! With whom , even including your family and best friends do you ever agree 100% ? Cutting off discussion is having a closed mind !
People want echo chambers that confirm everything they believe. Deviation is blasphemy. They have closed minds and won’t consider alternative ideas or arguments. Especially when presented with facts.
This isn’t an airport - you don’t have to announce your departure.
Humor is the best medicine! Thanks for this !
Really ? Please give some examples? Does everyone agree with everything?If so, it would be a very boring world or maybe even a totalitarian one where everyone must agree on all things.