Debate Watch Debate Watch

Previous Month | RSS/XML | Current

WEBLOG

September 12th, 2024 (Permalink)

The Last "Debate"?

  • The "Debate": Tuesday's joint news conference with the two major party candidates for president―otherwise known as a "debate"―was certainly better than the previous one between President Joe Biden and former president Donald Trump1, though that is a low threshold to cross. For the rest of this entry, I will refer to this event as a "debate", without the scare quotes, but please supply the quotation marks mentally.
  • The Debaters: Vice President Kamala Harris was a much better debater than Biden, which is again a very low bar, although her delivery was often robotic as she recited canned speeches. Unlike Biden, she succeeded in getting under Trump's skin, making him come across as vain and petty. Trump was worse than in the previous contest with Biden, in which he managed to somewhat control his tendency to brag and exaggerate. Here, his braggadocio reached absurd heights, including the claim that he will end the wars in both Ukraine and Gaza before he's even inaugurated.
  • The Format: Like most such debates, this was really a joint news conference of the two candidates, and there was little actual debating. As is also usual, the candidates mostly ignored the questions they were asked and delivered canned responses, in the case of Harris, or rambling non-answers that strayed off onto other topics, in the case of Trump.

    For instance, as the very first question of the debate, moderator David Muir asked Harris whether Americans are better off economically now than they were when the Biden and Harris administration took office2. It was a bad question with no right answer from her point of view: a "no" answer would have been an admission that the economy had worsened on her watch, whereas a "yes" would have seemed to many viewers as out of touch with reality. So, Harris never answered, simply using the question as a launch pad for a canned speech about the economy. Reporters seem to love to ask such "gotcha" questions, but they just encourage candidates to ignore them.

    This was the pattern of the entire debate, which raises the question: why continue to ask questions that serve no purpose other than to cater to the vanity of the moderators? There is no way to force the candidates to answer questions, so the moderator could just announce a topic for a section and then turn the floor over to the debater whose turn it is to speak.

    If we must have questions, why not introduce a cross-examination format so that the moderators can try to get the debaters to address the questions? Alternatively, some debate formats allow for a short cross-examination period in which the other side, rather than a moderator, questions the debater. Either choice would be preferable to continuing this boring charade.

  • The Moderators: I complimented the moderators of the last debate for managing to restrain themselves from trying to fact-check the debaters in real time1. Unfortunately, the moderators of this debate did repeatedly inject themselves into the debate. What's worse, they did so in a one-sided manner, contradicting some of Trump's falsehoods, but none of Harris'. If anyone thinks this is because Harris didn't say anything false, I discuss two of her whoppers below, under "Fallacies".

    This "debate" should be the last nail in the coffin of the multiple-moderator, joint news conference format of presidential debates. One unfortunate effect of abandoning the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) has been to bring back this awful format, since the CPD had used single moderators for a long time. The news networks, such as CNN and ABC, who host these debates are the only ones benefitting from this format since it allows their reporters to grandstand. The moderators in this one, to their shame, acted like they were there to debate Trump instead of getting out of the way and letting Harris do so. Here's the worst example from the debate:

    Former President Donald Trump: What they have done to our country by allowing these millions and millions of people to come into our country. And look at what's happening to the towns all over the United States. … In Springfield, they're eating the dogs. The people that came in. They're eating the cats. They're eating the pets of the people that live there. And this is what's happening in our country. And it's a shame. …

    David Muir, Moderator: I just want to clarify here, you bring up Springfield, Ohio. And ABC News did reach out to the city manager there. He told us there have been no credible reports of specific claims of pets being harmed, injured or abused by individuals within the immigrant community.

    Trump: Well, I've seen people on television.

    Muir: Let me just say here this―

    Trump: The people on television say my dog was taken and used for food. So maybe he said that and maybe that's a good thing to say for a city manager.

    Muir: I'm not taking this from television. I'm taking it from the city manager.

    Trump: But the people on television say their dog was eaten by the people that went there.

    Muir: Again, the Springfield city manager says there's no evidence of that.

    Trump: We'll find out.

    My point here is not who is right or wrong in this debate3, or who got the best of this exchange, but that a moderator is not supposed to argue with the debaters: that's not his job. This is the equivalent of the referee in a boxing match taking a few punches at one of the fighters.

  • Tactics: One of Harris' successful tactics was to needle Trump into losing his cool, especially by attacking his vanity. This is probably the oldest tactic in the debate handbook, and one of the first things debaters should learn is not to lose their tempers or to take things personally, no matter how they are baited. Losing your temper throws you off your game, and it never looks good to the audience. Trump has never learned this lesson despite appearing in many debates. Here's the most notable example:
    Vice President Kamala Harris: …I'm going to actually do something really unusual and I'm going to invite you to attend one of Donald Trump's rallies because it's a really interesting thing to watch. You will see during the course of his rallies he talks about fictional characters like Hannibal Lecter. He will talk about windmills cause cancer. And what you will also notice is that people start leaving his rallies early out of exhaustion and boredom. And I will tell you the one thing you will not hear him talk about is you. You will not hear him talk about your needs, your dreams, and your desires. And I'll tell you, I believe you deserve a president who actually puts you first. And I pledge to you that I will. …

    Trump: First let me respond as to the rallies. She said people start leaving. People don't go to her rallies. There's no reason to go. And the people that do go, she's busing them in and paying them to be there. And then showing them in a different light. So, she can't talk about that. People don't leave my rallies. We have the biggest rallies, the most incredible rallies in the history of politics. … As far as rallies are concerned, the reason they go is they like what I say.

    Why did Harris mention in passing, apropos of nothing, that some people leave Trump's rallies early? And why did Trump waste so many words defending the attendance at his rallies? She said it because she knows he's vain about his popularity, and she successfully baited him into wasting precious debate time boasting about something no one else cares about.

  • Fallacies: There were many logical fallacies committed, of course; too many to discuss them all, so I'll mention just a couple of the most egregious examples. From the transcript:
    Muir: Mr. President, on January 6th you told your supporters to march to the Capitol. You said you would be right there with them. The country and the world saw what played out at the Capitol that day. The officers coming under attack. Aides in the West Wing say you watched it unfold on television off the Oval Office. You did send out tweets, but it was more than two hours before you sent out that video message telling your supporters to go home. Is there anything you regret about what you did on that day?

    Trump: You just said a thing that isn't covered. Peacefully and patriotically, I said during my speech. Not later on. Peacefully and patriotically. And nobody on the other side was killed. Ashli Babbitt was shot by an out-of-control police officer that should have never, ever shot her. It's a disgrace. This group of people that have been treated so badly. I ask, what about all the people that are pouring into our country and killing people? That she allowed to pour in. She was the border czar. Remember that. She was the border czar. She doesn't want to be called the border czar because she's embarrassed by the border. … But when are those, David, when are those people going to be prosecuted? When are the people that burned down Minneapolis going to be prosecuted or in Seattle? … When are those people going to be prosecuted?

    As is typical of this debate, Trump never directly answered Muir's question, but he also used a distraction technique4. Illegal immigration and urban riots are legitimate issues, but riots that happened in Minneapolis or Seattle do not justify rioting in Washington, D. C. That one group of people who should have been prosecuted for rioting were not prosecuted is no justification for others rioting, or a reason for not prosecuting them. Selective prosecution is, of course, unjust, but it's no excuse for Trump's failures on that dreadful day.

    Harris responded to Trump's remarks as follows:

    Harris: I was at the Capitol on January 6th. I was the Vice President-Elect. I was also an acting senator. I was there. And on that day, the president of the United States incited a violent mob to attack our nation's Capitol, to desecrate our nation's Capitol. … But this is not an isolated situation. Let's remember Charlottesville, where there was a mob of people carrying tiki torches, spewing antisemitic hate, and what did the president then at the time say? There were fine people on each side. … So for everyone watching who remembers what January 6th was, I say we don't have to go back. … And to end the approach that is about attacking the foundations of our democracy 'cause you don't like the outcome. And be clear on that point. Donald Trump the candidate has said in this election there will be a bloodbath, if the outcome of this election is not to his liking.

    In this response, Harris refers to two contextomies, both of which have been widely debunked5. For that reason, I won't repeat what I've written elsewhere6.

    Given that it is now widely-known that both of these comments were taken out of context in a misleading way7, why did she repeat them? There seem to be only two possibilities: either she did not know, or she knew but decided to use them anyway. If the former, then she's too ignorant to be vice president, let alone president; if the latter, then she's knowingly trying to deceive the American people, that is, lying. I'll let you decide which is the case.

  • Who won?: From the point of view of debate tactics, leaving aside the issue of who was right or wrong about the issues or would make the better president, Harris won the debate. Harris was better prepared than Trump who, as usual, winged it. Trump's lack of preparation showed itself in more than one way. For instance, he lacked detailed evidence and resorted instead to blustering and exaggeration. In addition, Harris laid obvious traps for him, which he obliviously blundered into. Of course, Harris had the advantage of having the moderators on her side, but I suspect that she could have beaten Trump even with neutral moderators.
  • Another Debate?: The Harris campaign soon after the debate suggested a second one in October8, which shows that it realized the debate had gone well for its candidate. Trump, in contrast, waited until today to announce that there will be no third debate―all in capital letters, of course9―revealing that he knows he lost. Nonetheless, there's plenty of time to change his mind between now and the election.

    That he lost is, of course, no reason for dodging an additional debate since he could do better in a rematch. It has happened more than once in the history of presidential debates that an initial debate went badly for a candidate, but a later one repaired the damage. For instance, Ronald Reagan lost his first debate against Walter Mondale10, but won later ones and, more importantly, won the election in a landslide. More recently, Barack Obama lost his first debate against Mitt Romney11, but we all know how that turned out. If Trump would learn from his failure, take the task seriously and properly prepare, the same thing could happen again.

Notes:

  1. After the Debate, 6/29/2024.
  2. Riley Hoffman, "Read: Harris-Trump presidential debate transcript", ABC News, 9/11/2024. All quotes from the debate are from this transcript, and have been edited for length, clarity, and relevance.
  3. "Fact Check: No evidence of Haitian immigrants stealing and eating pets in Ohio", Reuters, 9/11/2024.
  4. Specifically: Two Wrongs Make a Right.
  5. For instance, see:
  6. Specifically:
  7. See: Quoting Out of Context.
  8. Anthony Robledo, "Will there be a second Harris-Trump debate? Where things stand between the two candidates", USA Today, 9/11/2024.
  9. Donald J. Trump, "When a prizefighter loses a fight…", Truth Social, 9/12/2024.
  10. Eli Wizevich, "When a Debate Flop Raised Concerns About Ronald Reagan's Fitness to Run for Re-Election", Smithsonian Magazine, 7/11/2024.
  11. Maeve Reston, "When Romney trounced Obama", CNN, 9/26/2016.
Puzzle
September 1st, 2024 (Permalink)

The Return of Three-Card Monty

"'Three-card Monty*' is the name; three-card monte is the game!" he shouted to the passing crowd on the boardwalk. Monty caught the eyes of a young couple: Jack, and his date, Jillian. The couple approached the large cardboard box that Monty used as a table. Monty took out a deck of cards, spreading it out face up on the box, and assured them that it was a standard deck of playing cards. Then, gracefully gathering the cards together, he riffled through the deck with the faces towards him, and pulled out three cards. He dealt the three cards face down in a row on top of the box.

"Listen close, whatever you do," he said to them, pointing to the row of cards, "to the right of a King is a Queen or two."

"To win or not to win, there's the rub!" he added, "a Heart or two are to the right of a Club."

"If you want to win, here's the thing," he continued, "to the left of a King is another King."

"And here's the most important part: there's a Heart or two to the left of a Heart."

"Now, listen to the final clue," Monty concluded, "to the left of a Queen is a Heart or two."

"Are you ready to find the lady?" he asked them, "find a gent, you won't win a cent!"

Which card should Jack and Jillian pick to win? Be careful! When Monty says that a card is to the right or left of another, he doesn't necessarily mean the immediate right or left. Also, right or left is from the point of view of the two suckers―I mean, the nice young couple.

* If you haven't met Montgomery Banks―not his birth name, I'm sure―he's a trickster who always speaks the truth and nothing but the truth, but he doesn't always tell the whole truth. Moreover, he never uses sleight-of-hand or gimmicked cards. Monty doesn't manipulate cards; he manipulates minds. For previous puzzles involving Monty, see:

Previous Month | RSS/XML | Current