https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-debate-accomplished-more-for-harris-than-it-did-for-trump/
Brookings Senior Fellows William Galston and Elaine Kamarck react to the first and potentially only Harris-Trump debate.
Controversial but I was surprised at how well trump did for himself.
He managed to dial down the lies and rhetoric from “how stupid does he think the audience is” to “obviously bullshit”.
Well done to Harris of course, in particular for calling his playbook tactics out at the start, then repeatedly calling out the lies and dog whistling each time - the way to beat a manipulating bully is to shine a light on their behaviour plainly in public and she nailed it.
Bonus points to Harris as well for laughing at him whilst maintaining class.
I thought he would lose control more but he did go into several crazy rants.
Harris I thought did a good job but I wanted her to point out not just his lies but his constant hyperbole and wild exaggerations.
Yeah, I wanted Harris to completely eviscerate Trump, which didn't exactly happen. But I don't think that's because she did poorly --- it's because I know who I'm voting for, and I'm not the target audience.
Had it been the proverbial bloodbath that I wanted to see, it might not have played well with independents/those on the fence (which I blame largely on sexism --- a ruthless woman is "a bitch," but a ruthless man is "strong," etc.).
Judging from the headlines and conversations I'm seeing, I think she really threaded the needle --- came across as strong, intelligent, leader-like, all the while giving Trump enough rope to hang himself. More might have alienated voters, and less might have come across as too soft. Really good stuff from her and her campaign.