Objective Debate Review... Trump Lost, but the Needle Might Not Have Moved
Trump lost a 3v1 debate, but Kamala likely didn't do enough to assuage voters about inflation.
It's no secret that I will be voting for Donald Trump in November. A quick look at my past articles and X account will make that clear. But I also am committed to being honest. And being honest, Trump lost that debate. But how bad was it? And what's next for Trump?
You don't need to watch debates to know who won. Instead, you can look at the reactions online. The party blaming the moderators is generally the party that lost. In Trump's first debate against Biden, Democrats blamed the moderators for not stepping in and correcting Trump on specific issues. After last night's debate, Republicans were blaming the moderators for stepping in and correcting Trump. And, quite frankly, the Republicans were correct to be upset with the moderators… but Trump still lost the debate.
I did not watch the debate live; I watched it the morning after. I had looked at the online conversations, and it seemed to be a heavy focus on the moderators from Republicans, while some Democrats were calling it the biggest beatdown in a debate they'd ever seen. It should be obvious to anyone that after the Trump-Biden debate, the Democrat reaction cannot be genuine. There will never be a debate as lopsided as that Biden debate. After this debate, the Republican reaction seems far more honest.
Guy Benson, for example, had a fairly simple, to-the-point, honest reaction to the debate. The ABC moderators were biased, but Kamala was highly prepared, while Trump missed many opportunities. That about sums up my thoughts on the debate, which should be most people's takeaway.
The moderators, as much hate as they usually receive, deserve the backlash they are receiving from Republicans. They continually would speak after Trump finished his statement, attempting to correct something that Trump said. At one point, I believe the first time they tried to correct him, they were wrong. The moderators said that in no state is it illegal to kill a baby after it is born. However, that clearly was not what Trump was talking about. In many states, if a baby is born alive after an abortion, the doctors are not required to attempt to save the baby's life. Rather, as former Virginia Governor Ralph Northam stated, after an attempted abortion that leads to the baby being born, the "baby would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired." Essentially, that means that after birth, the doctors have no duty to care for and ensure the baby's life.
You can debate about whether Trump's language was precise enough, but we all know that Trump's language is never exact. Trust me, I wish he was more precise—he'd be winning in a landslide if he were. However, the fact remains that the moderators were wrong in correcting Trump. While you may not call the doctors choosing not to resuscitate a baby born alive a "killing," to many people, that's precisely what it is. Doctors have a duty to try to save lives, and choosing not to do so to a newborn is, to most, choosing to kill that baby.
The moderators never once fact-checked Kamala. She repeated the "very good people" lie and the "bloodbath" lie; she lied about the Supreme Court immunity ruling, and she lied about no soldiers being in combat zones. We have soldiers in the Gulf of Oman conducting operations as we speak, which has been a combat zone since 1991. The moderators failed to fact-check that.
Now, I'm not mad that the moderators failed to fact-check her. The moderators should not be in the business of fact-checking the candidates. That should be up to the other candidate. And Trump failed to adequately fact-check Kamala, although that is nearly impossible to do with the muted microphones. But what I am upset about is that they selectively and incorrectly fact-checked one candidate and not the other.
The moderators also continually moved on from topics that Trump was doing well in. When he spoke about Afghanistan, immigration, and the economy, the moderators often butted in and said that they needed to move on. They never once did that to Kamala. They always let her finish her piece before they moved on to the next question.
That's enough on the moderators. While, as a Republican myself, they stole the show, the truth of the matter is that Kamala was far more prepared to answer questions (and avoid answering those she didn't want to). She was also able to bait Trump into getting off-topic, which I stated in my last article should be her strategy.
Trump, on the other hand, wasn't able to stay on topic. Some online are trying to paint that as him being old and not competent anymore, but that argument won't stick. Trump has never been one to stay on topic; that's just who he is when he has an audience. The American people know that. They've known that for eight years.
This leads me to the most significant point about this debate—It might not hurt Trump electorally. What we got from Trump is what we have seen for eight years. Everyone already has their opinions on Trump, and Trump being Trump won't change any opinions. It would have been nice if he could have stayed on point and avoided taking the bait about January 6th, the 2020 election, and his rallies, but he took the bait. But we all figured he would. His doing so won't make many people change their vote to Kamala.
The onus was on Kamala to shed light on her policies and to distance herself from Biden's policies. Trump missed many opportunities to tie her to Biden, but Kamala also didn't do a great job distancing herself. She talked about her "Opportunity Economy," which sounds great. More money to people who want money. However, she failed to discuss how that would actually help the economy rather than create more inflation. After the past three and a half years, Americans are more worried about inflation than they have been in recent memory. I'd bet that to most independents, her policies scream more inflation.
That said, Trump didn't do a great job laying out a plan to fight inflation. Despite that, polls after the debate showed that Trump beat her on the issue of the economy. There's a straightforward reason for that—Trump's presidency was good for the economy. The honest person recognizes that Covid derailed what was a fantastic economy, and many trust Trump more than Kamala to get the economy back to the pre-Covid state. After all, it was Trump who presided over the pre-Covid economy. And it is Kamala who is second-in-command to an inflationary economy. The difference between them is quite clear, and that's why Trump doesn't have to lay out much of a plan. We've already seen him do well.
That's why I think this debate won't move the needle much for Kamala. I'm sure she will get somewhat of a bump in the polls, but not enough to put her over the top. This will still be a dead heat. I'm sure that whatever boost she gets, much like her DNC boost, will evaporate quickly. She didn't assuage many fears about her ability to fight inflation, while Trump was Trump. It was a lot of the same for each candidate. Kamala's policies make people fear that we are in for more of what we've had during the past three and a half years, while Trump's personality confirms what people already knew about him. The needle wasn't moved very far, despite what many Democrats say online.
So what's next? Kamala immediately asked for a second debate despite previously running from them. Trump has previously challenged Kamala to three debates, the first of which would have been last week had Kamala agreed to his challenge. But she refused. However, with her renewed interest in debating, should Trump take the debate?
It comes down to how the polls shake out. If there is absolutely no movement in favor of Kamala, that means the American people are not buying what she's selling. And if that's the case, there is no need for Trump to take the debate. He can say he already challenged her to two more, and she declined. However, if the polls show movement in favor of Kamala, Trump should take the debate, provided that there are some conditions.
First, and really the only one, is that they agree on who the moderators are. This debate had moderators hand-picked by the Biden administration, and it proved to be unfair to Trump. He needs to have a say in who moderates future debates. Without that, Trump should not debate. It may look weak, but it was apparent to the average person that these moderators were voting for Kamala and wanted to make her look better than Trump. Donald Trump cannot get into that same situation just days before people start voting.
Other than that, little stands in the way of a second debate. If the polls show movement toward Kamala and she agrees to have mutually agreed-upon moderators, Trump should take the debate. In 2019, Kamala was great in her first Democratic primary debate but fell apart in her second. While she likely won't fall apart as badly as she did in 2019, a more prepared, more focused Trump should be able to make her look a lot worse than she did last night.
But if she comes out stronger than last night and can explain how her policies won't increase inflation just days before the voting starts… it might not be good for Trump. If he agrees to another debate, he must stay on point. Kamala is more prone to attack than Trump is; he just needs to fire off those attacks on the big stage.