Debate Night: Evasion Over Substance

Vice President Kamala Harris faced a critical moment on debate night, but rather than seizing the opportunity to clarify her positions, she largely evaded substantive questions. She had one chance to distance herself from the Biden administration’s record, and last night was that moment—an opportunity she ultimately failed to seize.

From the outset, Harris was on the defensive, relying heavily on the anti-Trump talking points that have dominated Democratic discourse for the past two years. Her approach was clearly aimed at reiterating criticisms of her opponent rather than providing a meaningful discussion of her policies. What’s more, the big bad guy, Donald Trump, did not denounce his opponent or take personal shots at her character the way she did to him.

A significant moment came when Trump offered to halt the debate and go directly to Washington D.C. to urge President Biden to sign an executive order to close the borders. Harris’s failure to address this offer was a missed opportunity to discuss practical solutions to one of the administration’s most contentious issues. Instead, she avoided the topic and failed to engage with the offer, leaving viewers questioning her commitment to addressing the immigration crisis.

Harris’s talking points were designed to provoke Trump, and while this strategy somewhat elicited a reaction from him, it often came at the expense of addressing the substantive issues at hand. Her responses were marked by a lack of direct engagement on key topics, including economic issues like inflation, where she struggled to respond clearly to criticisms about the Biden administration’s role.

On the subject of tariffs, Harris was notably torpedoed. Despite criticizing the tariffs during the debate, the Biden administration has maintained them, raising questions about whether she is fully aware of the policies of the administration she has been part of for the past three and a half years. This contradiction underscored her failure to provide coherent and actionable policy stances.

While many in the popular media might think that Harris won the debate, they are somewhat incorrect. Harris should have provided a better roadmap for the viewers, rather than offering handout policies like helping people buy homes, have children, and pay for cribs for their babies. These proposals, which have backfired on the American economy time and again, only served to amplify Trump’s criticisms that the Democrats are pursuing policies designed to curry favor with voters, including illegal immigrants. This aligns with Trump’s assertion that the Democratic agenda is focused on providing financial support to illegal immigrants to guarantee votes, a narrative that resonates negatively with voters facing economic hardships.

ABC News should be criticized for its role in this debate. The network’s decision to pose softball questions to Harris while rigorously fact-checking Trump was a disservice to viewers. The moderators failed to hold Harris to the same level of scrutiny, which undermined the debate’s integrity. The debate also featured an irrelevant question about the 2020 election, which had little bearing on the current issues. This distraction only served to divert attention away from substantive policy discussions and further highlighted the lack of focus in the debate.

Throughout the debate, Trump maintained a level of restraint, focusing on presenting his viewpoints without resorting to personal attacks on Harris’s character. In contrast, Harris’s approach was marked by her defensive posture and reliance on rehearsed anti-Trump rhetoric, which did little to provide clarity on her policy positions or address the electorate’s concerns.

In summary, Harris’s debate performance highlighted her difficulty in engaging with substantive issues and addressing critical topics directly. Her use of provocative talking points, while somewhat effective in stirring reactions, detracted from her ability to present a clear stance on national challenges. At certain times she sounded almost like she was talking to a church group rather than a presidential debate. Combined with ABC News’s biased moderation and irrelevant questioning, the debate fell short of providing the clarity and insight that voters deserved.