Kamala Harris Won Debate by a Knockout—but Her Fight Is Far From Over

If Tuesday night’s presidential debate were a boxing match it might have been stopped by the referees in its very first moments when Kamala Harris entered the stage and had to practically chase the flummoxed Donald Trump into a corner to simply shake his hand.

Or perhaps it should’ve been stopped when, very early on, Trump went from looking tired and unhappy to being certifiably deranged railing about the threat posed by marauding immigrants who had apparently come to America to eat our pets.

ABC’s Linsey Davis Brutally Fact-Checks Trump During DebateSMACK DOWN

Corbin Bolies, Tim Teeman

Perhaps it would have been the moment that Harris deftly raised the fact that Trump’s rallies were poorly attended and that his supporters typically started to stream out of them before they were over. Or perhaps it was her absolutely smashing, exceptionally eloquent points about women’s reproductive rights, about Trump’s long history of racism, or about Jan. 6.

Certainly, it was clear that on all the judges’ scorecards Harris had won by a knockout when moments after the debate ended, America’s influencer-in-chief Taylor Swift announced her endorsement of the vice president and her running mate Tim Walz—with a picture of Swift that featured her apparently holding one of the cats that had not yet been consumed by visitors from another country.

Harris won the debate by every conceivable metric you could imagine. She won on substance—backing up every answer with solid facts. She won by punch count, getting in many devastating blows to Trump while he was unable to lay a glove on her. She defended herself expertly, calling out his lies and diminishing him time and again with scathing references to his character.

In fact, if there was one aspect of the lively, high energy debate that really stands out it was that while Harris took the high road throughout, focusing on the needs and concerns and hopes of the listening audience, she did so while periodically getting in the well-timed body blow that called out his crimes and character flaws, that goaded him and rattled him. While she was certainly smaller in stature, it was clear from beginning to end of the debate that Trump was out of his league, punching far above his intellectual weight.

The debate also made it readily apparent that for all of the accomplishments of Joe Biden’s distinguished career, the gracious decision for him to step aside and let his VP take on Trump was the right one. In this debate, it was Trump who was the low-energy, superannuated contestant. Harris made the case compellingly that she was the voice of a new generation and had a clear vision for America’s future that Trump simply could not keep up with. (Nothing illustrated that quite so well as his answer when pressed about what he intended to replace Obamacare with he said that all he had was “concepts of a plan.”)

In a normal world, the fall campaign would have effectively ended with the pasting Trump got in Philadelphia. But this is not—as the rumors of gangs of puppy-eaters in our midst reveal—a normal world.

Harris no doubt will benefit from her exceptional showing. (Lawrence O’Donnell on MSNBC called it, accurately, the best presidential debate performance we’ve ever seen. I’ve given it a lot of thought and I can’t think of one that even compares with it in terms of beginning-to-end effectiveness, efficiency, and eloquence.) She should. It is yet another extraordinary moment in her campaign in which she faced a make-or-break moment and not only rose to the occasion but greatly exceeded expectations.

But do not expect that opinion polls will show her lead ballooning in the next few days. It will grow probably—but by a modest amount. That is due in part, of course, to the fact that many opinion polls are deeply flawed. But it is also a consequence of the fact that we live in a country in which the members of our two political parties receive their information from dramatically different sources.

If you saw the debate or listened to reasonable analysis, it was clear to you that Trump failed and Harris triumphed. But if you tuned into the MAGA broadcasting companies or followed MAGA voices on social media you got a different story. Trump’s campaign put out a statement declaring victory in the debate a half-hour before the debate had ended. GOP commentators howled that the ABC moderators for the debate were deeply unfair—because they actually periodically fact-checked the former president. I saw comments on Twitter saying that Harris should not jab at Trump or laugh at him… because it was undignified. (Of course, Trump was talking about illegal aliens eating Fido but let’s just let that slide.)

There is a term that some in the media use to describe citizens who are susceptible to the MAGA spin or to Trump lies (and he lied at a prodigious pace during the debate—ranging from claims that Russia would never have invaded Ukraine had he been in office when in fact Russia invaded Ukraine two years before he took office and was attacking them for every minute he was president—to the really spectacular lie that everyone, “Democrats and Republicans” wanted Roe v. Wade overturned which must have been a big shock to the two-thirds of audience members who actually opposed that action.) They are called “low-information voters.”

In my view however, even if you took in just a few bits and pieces of Trump’s debacle on Tuesday, you still would have to say he should not under any circumstances be president. Which is why I think Trump’s real base is not low-information voters. It is no-information voters. It is people who simply do not want to hear about the world as it is. They just want to stick with the prejudices and misconceptions that have gotten them this far in life. Or they don’t really care about facts. They know Trump will deliver the tax cut or culture war initiative they support and so they’re for him whether he is an incompetent, criminal, menace or not.

Unfortunately, as we look at current polling, a substantial chunk of Americans fall into this category of no-information voters. They’re the ones Trump once said would vote for him even if he murdered someone on Fifth Avenue and who then proved it by continuing to support him after two impeachments, an insurrection, 34 felony convictions, being held liable for rape, stealing national secrets, and being judged by historians to be the worst president in our history. And they are the reason that no matter how brilliant Harris’ performance was—and it was extraordinary—and no matter how embarrassing Trump’s faceplant was—and it was feeble—he will maintain the support of 45-plus percent of the electorate no matter what.

So that means that while Tuesday was an important landmark in this election campaign, in order to win, Harris and Walz are going to have to keep putting together performances like it for next 55 or so days. Day in and day out. Especially in swing states. Especially targeting those who minds may have been opened a little bit by the effective arguments from the vice president in Philadelphia.

This they must do with the same combination of hard-hitting fact-based arguments and deft commentaries on the defects and dangers of Trump. They can even use some of the video clips from this week’s debate to help make their points. There are, after all, some doozies. (Count on seeing his chest-thumping about Roe v. Wade and his repeat of the Big Lie and his defense of the Jan. 6 insurrectionists over and over again.)

If Harris and Walz do that, while the no-information voters may be beyond reach, there are millions of others who will ultimately be persuaded by facts and by the clearly superior character and vision of Vice President Harris. And if they pursue those swing voters as relentlessly and effectively as Harris hammered her opponent on the debate stage, then ultimately the Democrats will achieve the even greater, lasting victory they seek on Election Night.