Editorial: A very useful debate: The Harris and Trump show needs another episode
The public isn’t always right, but in this case, there’s a good reason 23 undecided voters in swing states told the Washington Post that Vice President Kamala Harris won Tuesday night’s debate, compared to just two favoring Donald Trump. She was far superior to Joe Biden’s June outing and she had a better night than Trump.
As to what’s next, there should be another debate. Trump wanted one earlier and Harris has now agreed. Make it happen.
In this first round, Harris was composed, her presentation cogent, her message focused on bettering the lives of working- and middle-class Americans. Then there was the other candidate — so busy painting Harris and President Biden as the worst administration in American history, and calling the 2020 election rigged, and defending his actions on Jan. 6, and repeating dangerous nonsense about immigrants eating pets, he had hardly a moment to say what he’d do with a second term.
Of course, Trump is complaining about a supposedly rigged game by blaming the refs. That’s what he does: Trump lashed out at Megyn Kelly and Lester Holt in 2016 and Chris Wallace in 2020. But this time, fair-minded observers saw that ABC News moderators, David Muir and Linsey Davis, were persistent and precise, and did their journalistic duty by correcting flagrant falsehoods, the vast majority of which were spouted by the Florida man.
Harris gave an impassioned, important statement on the need to restore abortion rights in the wake of Trump’s demolition of reproductive freedoms and he ducked the question if he would sign or veto a national abortion ban.
She zapped him for currying the favor of strongmen and for preparing to fold to Vladimir Putin in Ukraine. She took the offensive on America’s southern border, rightly attacking Trump for killing a good piece of bipartisan legislation that would’ve strengthened border security: “Donald Trump got on the phone, called up some folks in Congress, and said kill the bill. And you know why? Because he preferred to run on a problem instead of fixing a problem.”
However, on her weak points, Harris was evasive. She outright ignored the very first question of the night, about if “Americans are better off than they were four years ago?” The answer, for many is, “no.” Also missing was any response about why inflation has risen in the Biden/Harris years and the impact that’s had on people. And on immigration, she left unanswered anything about her own record on the issue.
Credible center-right economists say Trump’s trade proposals add up to a$3 trillion tax hike; another group of economists say they’ll cost families nearly $3,000 a year. And inasmuch as Trump wants to cut taxes, the benefits skew toward the wealthiest Americans.
Take it all together, and number-crunchers with Penn-Wharton Budget, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget), the Tax Foundation and Oxford Economics estimate that it’s his plans, not hers, that would bust the federal budget by adding between $3.6 trillion and $6.6 trillion to U.S. deficits over a decade. Harris’ plans, by contrast, would add $400 billion to $1.4 trillion.
In all, the fast 90 minutes wasn’t enough to cover all the important topics that voters need to compare the candidates. One debate was deeply informative, but it barely scratched the surface on policy. Thank you, sir and madam, can we have an encore, please?
___
