The first and perhaps only debate for the 2024 presidential general election, which was held on September 10th, is history.
Throughout their long history, these debates have always experienced pre-debate and post-debate disagreements.
After one of the first of three televised presidential debates in 1960, there was disagreement on the winner. A majority of voters who watched that debate on television responded in a post-debate survey that John F. Kennedy won. A majority of voters who listened to that debate on the radio responded in a post-debate survey that Nixon won.
Prior to the most recent debate, the Harris campaign adamantly refused to consider an offer from Fox News to host a debate, an offer strongly favored by the Trump campaign.
This year’s on-again, off- again debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris sponsored by ABC did have a happy ending for many voters. They were happy when the pre-debate hype and the actual debate ended.
While the pre-debate hype and actual debate are over, there have been and will continue to be intense discussions about the September 10th debate between the candidates and their most steadfast supporters.
Topics for the post-debate debates include but are not limited to who won, why they won, who lost, why they lost, the fairness of the moderators, the questions posed to each candidate by the moderators, incomplete candidate answers to certain questions from the moderators, the body language of the moderators, one moderator’s recent acknowledgement that he chose to aggressively pursue fact-checking a number of Trump’s answers during the debate, the validity of his fact-checking observations during the debate, the need for at least one more debate, and even the earrings worn by Kamala Harris during the debate.
Not surprisingly, in many cases, the varied answers to those post-debate debate questions are the result of the thinking on political messaging by communications guru Frank Luntz and two published works in the Washington Post on trust in the media. These observations have appeared in previous commentaries of mine, but all bear repeating here.
Luntz has observed – “It’s not what you say or write, it is what people hear or read. You can have the best message in the world, but the person on the receiving end will always understand it through the prism of their own emotions, preconceptions, prejudices, and preexisting beliefs.”
No doubt the Trump campaign is fully aware of and will work hard to widely distribute the following recent and scathing observations by the Washington Post Editorial Board, and Washington Post columnist Philip Bloom that I referenced in a previous commentary.
The Post’s editorial board cited a recent Post and Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University survey reporting only three in ten residents of six of the most important states in this year’s presidential election trust the media will fairly and accurately report political news. Bump recently wrote in the Post — “Americans simply don’t trust the media, particularly when it comes to politics.”
If and how those Washington Post observations may be viewed by voters remains to be seen.
The same is true on the breaking news on a second assassination attempt on Donald Trump.
We do know every political campaign will have unexpected opportunities and unexpected challenges. The question is always when and how will they play out.
For Donald Trump, an unexpected opportunity (now moot) was having President Joe Biden as his opponent when it was increasingly clear Biden was past his political prime.
For Donald Trump, an unexpected challenge was a debate where Kamala Harris exceeded expectations.
For Kamala Harris, an unexpected challenge was launching a presidential campaign on very short notice.
For Kamala Harris, an unexpected opportunity was a debate where she branded herself as a viable presidential candidate.
Before the debate, some polls showed Trump leading Harris in all key battleground states.
After the debate, some polls polling in some of those battleground states showed Harris leading Trump in some of the key battleground states.
Neither of the polls projected enough state wins to clinch victory in the Electoral College.
The bottom line is the outcome of their September 10 debate alone is not predictive of the November election outcome.
The voters who decide who prevails in November will not be significantly impacted by who won or who lost a 90-minute debate held in mid-September.
I expect most independent and undecided voters will vote based on their perceptions on which candidate cares most about their deepest concerns, and who best articulates a positive and achievable vision for the future.
As always, one and only one candidate will ultimately enjoy a happy ending in the upcoming presidential election.
David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant who lives in Easton.
Reed Fawell 3 says
“As always, one and only one candidate will ultimately enjoy a happy ending in the upcoming presidential election.”
But, most likely, only one will have survived at least two nearly successful assassination attempts to survive the election.
Carol Voyles says
Surviving a second assassination attempt suggests that both candidates could be happy following this election.
Let’s hope for the best.
Mickey Terrone says
Mr. Reel, somehow, you seem to have overlooked Trump’s announced plan to challenge the voting totals (in states where he loses) due to fraud. That would be the same specious charge he still claims caused him to lose in 2020. Thus, I think your comment that the voters will decide who prevails in November is partiallly true. I’d also disagree that this most recent debate will have little effect on the outcome. Trump was slaughtered in the debate and resorted to crazed, extreme rhetoric (like the devoured dogs and cats in Springfield, Ohio). I believe that made a mark on Trump’s legitimacy as a serious candidate. I have to think that some appreciable portion of Trump’s zombies had to acknowledge to themselves that he’s too old, or has “lost it” or finally understood that he was trying gratuitously to instill ever more fear of immigrants to instigate them. I believe you don’t want to admit he was utterly blown away in the debate. I don’t know any Republican who felt Biden hadn’t lost the election because of his performance. I feel that way about Trump.
Regarding Trump’s scheme to abrogate the 2024 electoral process, have you forgotten to factor in the electoral challenges to numerous voting counts in states that he loses? Trump’s party will seek to create doubt and confusion in swing states by claiming massive fraud (where he loses) and have the Republican state legislatures decide the verdict. I believe this time they will actually perpetrtate the fraud on behalf of the Democrats by themselves providing bags of fake ballots and producing video of their own operatives performing illegal acts. That was missing in 2020. Their objective is to send the 2024 election results to friendly state supreme courts, the US House of Representatives and/or the Supreme Court. Trump will be ready to tell his base to stand back and stand by to take to the streets if these schemes fail to take effect.
Further, I disagree that the “bypassed” white Republican base cares much for their own best economic interests. They don’t seem to worry about what happens to them after Trump et al, abolish Social Security. They have a “What, me worry?” attitude toward Trump’s alleged plans to replace Obamacare (Affordable Care Act). They’re happy with massive tax cuts to the wealthiest 1% of their billionaire Republican “allies”. They don’t have the money to send their children to expensive private schools and need strong public schools more than anyone.
I do appreciate that you are doing your very best to cover up the pile of feces Trump produced in this recent debate, but I don’t think you’re telling it like it is to average Republicans. We both know that if and when Trump loses, the Democrats will take far better care of the “bypassed” white Republicans than the Republicans themselves.
Reed Fawell 3 says
“We both know that if and when Trump loses, the Democrats will take far better care of the “bypassed” white Republicans than the Republicans themselves.”
What will happen to the other republicans then? Re-education, cancellation, intimidation, exile, elimination? Or is that already going on today, only it would be worse if Democrats won?
Mickey Terrone says
Mr. Fawell, as usual, your kneejerk reactions have reached the depths of irrelevance, now bordering on paranoia. “What will happen to other Republicans, then”, you ask.
First, the poor white “bypassed” Republican “base” would be economically strangled by Trump who promises to eliminate the Affordable Health Care Act and Social Security. That segment of American society most desperately needs both programs to survive. So many of that “Base” live from paycheck to paycheck and are among that portion of Americans with minimal savings. Of course, Trump has been hedging (lying) about his plan to replace the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) since the first months of his presidency. He will leave those poor Republican supporters in the lurch and probably start referring to them as “suckers”, the way he refers to Americans who served in the US military.
WIthout Social Security, the “Base” could likely create a massive army of millions of destitute, penniless seniors with catastrophic results for American society. Maybe you think they can survive and prosper making money on sports betting instead of Social Security checks.
I’ve often wondered why virtually no poor, white “bypassed” Republican voters have asked Trump about these 2 (or many economic issues). This is why I sometimes use the term “zombie” to describe them. With no health insurance they and no Social Security payments, how will they survive? Kamala Harris will fight to protect Social Security and the Affordable Care Act (as well as Medicare etc). Trump will turn the insurance companies loose to charge exhorbitant rates on seniors (and everyone else).
As far as your question about the “other” Republicans, they’ll be fine. As a sizeable minority in American society, they’ll be able to get on with their lives and be prosperous as they have heretofore. They just won’t be able to control the lives of the majority of Americans with an authoritarian dictator in the White House and a radicalized Supreme Court to ensure an updated white supremacist Jim Crow rule of law. Republicans all benefit when Democrats control the White House and congress. We pass laws that support everyonne, not just Democrats.
Strong public schools support the children of both Republicans and Democrats who can’t afford expensive private schools. Same with affordable health insurance; same with a woman’s choice with her reproductive rights. White Republican women get abortions, too, Mr. Fawell, in case you were unaware. Democrats will protect their rights, too.
You claim to be concerned that Republicans will be subjected to “Re-education, cancellation, intimidation, exile or elimination”. Wait! Those are Trump’s “solutions” for America. Re-education for gay people is already happening in Louisiana and approved of by Speaker Johnson. Trump talks expressly about jailing his political opponents and a military tribunal awaits Liz Cheney. That borders on nazi style intimidation, to say the least. Trump will “exile” millions of immigrants and “cancel” the voting rights of millions more minorities. So, Mr. Fawell, your Republican Party has become America’s version of Germany’s National Socialist brownshirt movement. The stupidest aspect of the support people like you give to Trump is that somehow you think yourself invulnerable to a dictator arbitarily changing his mind about you. Maybe you won’t like the next dictator after Trump. But then, its too late. You gave up your rights in the American Democratic Republic because you believed in a messiah, sent by God to save America. Isn’t that idiocy? Didn’t that happen in Germany in the 1930’s? You want that for our country?
Reed Fawell 3 says
Some facts are very hard for us to accept, and even process. For example: What might this comment copied in below suggest to some, according to Just the News?
“We both know that if and when Trump loses, the Democrats will take far better care of the “bypassed” white Republicans than the Republicans themselves.”
Here is one possible answer, according to a recent Rasmussen Poll:
“In a shocking display of how vitriolic U.S. politics has become, more than a quarter of Democrats believe America would be better off if GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump had been killed during one of the two assassination attempts on his life, a new survey revealed Wednesday.
The new poll of 1,000 registered voters taken by veteran pollster Scott Rasmussen’s Napolitan News Institute after the second assassination attempt against Trump on Sunday at a Florida golf course revealed that 17% of voters say it would have been better for America had Donald Trump had been killed last weekend.
That figure included a whopping 28% of Democrats, the survey showed.
You can see the full results here, GCM24-0917 Toplines – Assassination Attempt.pdf”
What is generating this gross hate and fear of a candidate endorsed by near half of the American voters.