Listen to the candidates "debate" Laugh about it, shout about it, When you've got to choose — Every way you look at it, you lose
— Paul Simon(with slight contextual updates since the 60s)
Shockingly, virtually nothing happened in last night's "debate" that was either surprising or, in fact, "news."
- These moderators were slightly better than the last time around… they earned a C-minus. They were handicapped by an insane format, of course. They get some points for at least sometimes calling bullshit on, well, bullshit. But they lose points for the condescending banality of their questions… and even more for letting candidates get away with not answering the questions before them, and for going even farther off topic in their "rebuttals" (which were actually "responses" but whatever).
- Ms Harris nearly blew it initially, because she really didn't answer what was very much a softball question. The obvious response to what boiled down to "Are you better off than four years ago?" would have been something like
You and many, many Americans are alive. Our economy has, under President Biden's leadership, largely recovered from the largest public health crisis in a century. And you didn't even need to drink bleach to get here!
followed by whatever canned nonspecifics the don't-offend-anyone idiots advising her had force-fed into debate prep.
But that's not what we got. We got Aunt Fluffy, for at least a few moments… and precisely because this was the first question, that was at best inept strategy. Her actual answer was obviously nonresponsive enough that some undecided voters might well have made up their minds at that point… and missed her improvement later in the session. "Sandbagging" only works after establishing a position of at least some strength — it depends upon already having established a prima facie position, thereby requiring the opponent to respond.
- Or maybe it wasn't that Ms Harris "improved" so much as she let her opponent be himself — allowed him to demonstrate to anyone not blinded by tribalism who had two brain cells to rub together that, no matter what policy disagreements one might have with Ms Harris, they pale in comparison to the utter inhumanity and unsuitability for any office (even business leader… or gameshow host) of that opponent. In a representative democracy — and that includes elected chief executives (and elected judges hack phhhht), not just legislators — one isn't voting for policies; one is voting for persons who, when they are confronted with the unknown, can be trusted to do something appropriate regardless of personal benefit to that elected representative. "Concept of a plan" eight years after the issue became live, since that opponent was campaigning on the same subject in 2016, is short of the mark — and that was one of the good points!
But there's one aspect of that candidate's obsessions and answers I cannot let go. At risk of violating Godwin's Law, it's worth recalling certain rallies that were extremely well-attended… and marked by speeches (not just from the "main attraction") long on tribalist bullshit and very, very short on facts and actual policy. It's not that this particular candidate is as evil as Hitler (or, for that matter, that most of this candidate's supporters are comparable to Nazis) — he's not that competent and doesn't have enough competent people in his inner circle — but that the methods and obsessions are so disturbingly parallel. (And with Party Congress sessions two decades later a couple thousand kilometers east-northeast.)
- Last, a bit of amusement in the aftermath. I'm a dog person, and I have children (much to their chagrin). I'm not a fan of That Childless Cat Lady… but I applaud the timing of her endorsement in that she left it until after (a) the candidate she was endorsing didn't embarass herself and all sentient beings and (b) the other one… did. Indeed, this cat lady made the point that she had actually watched the "debate" prior to issuing her endorsement. That doesn't make her music more to my taste, but still…