The First Trump/Harris Debate: the Good, the Bad and the Ugly

The first presidential campaign debate between former President Donald Trump and current Vice President/Democrat anointee Kamala Harris is now behind us, and boy howdy, what a spectacle it was. The debate was hosted by ABC and "moderated" by ABC talking heads David Muir and Linsey Davis, who gave not even the slightest pretext of impartiality. We've seen the deck stacked against GOP candidates in debates before, but never this brazenly; a Rubicon has been crossed, and the legacy media has shown they will lean on the Republican candidate as hard as they have to to give the Democrat the appearance of a win. The GOP had better assimilate that fact and start insisting on neutral territory for these events.

So let's break down some of the highlights - and lowlights.

The Good

Former President Trump was dealt a horrible hand, facing in effect not one opponent but three. He dealt with the shocking display of partisanship by the "moderators" as well as can be expected, and on several issues, he was able to correct blatant mistruths - lies - from Kamala Harris, such as when she accused him of being behind "Project 2025."

Number one, I have nothing to do, as you know and as she knows better than anyone, I have nothing to do with Project 2025. That's out there. I haven't read it. I don't want to read it, purposely. I'm not going to read it. This was a group of people that got together, they came up with some ideas. I guess some good, some bad.

His best answers were on economic issues, which was expected. In most polling, the former president has and still does command a lead in this issue. And, I have to say, just dealing with the naked partisanship of the "moderators" would have taxed anyone's patience.

Kamala Harris started the debate poorly; she was openly nervous and seemed on the verge of tears more than once. After the mid-debate break, though, she seemed to hit her stride and gained a little confidence.

Trump's best line of the night may have been when he threw a notorious Harris line right back at her:

In Minnesota, she went out -- wait a minute. I'm talking now. If you don't mind. Please. Does that sound familiar?

In part, Trump dealt with the partisanship by using the questions to pivot onto friendly ground; for example, on a question on the January 6th issue, Trump did a neat lateral arabesque to deflect with a discussion about the disaster on our southern border and how it is affecting American communities.

But we didn't do -- 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. In fact, she said at the beginning, I'm surprised you're not talking about the border yet.

The Bad

Throughout the debate, Vice President Harris did not give one direct answer to a single question. She lapsed into work salads several times, and the moderators never once sought to pin her down or to point out that she never actually answered the question. Her arguments were all platitudes, with no examples, no specifics, no statistics.

So, Donald Trump has no plan for you. And when you look at his economic plan, it's all about tax breaks for the richest people. I am offering what I describe as an opportunity economy, and the best economists in our country, if not the world, have reviewed our relative plans for the future of America. What Goldman Sachs has said is that Donald Trump's plan would make the economy worse. Mine would strengthen the economy. What the Wharton School has said is Donald Trump's plan would actually explode the deficit.

The moderators never sought to pin her down on precisely what an "opportunity economy" is, or what its implementation would entail. What few specifics she gave would, of course, involve spending, spending, more spending, and still more spending.

And that is why I imagine and have actually a plan to build what I call an opportunity economy. Because here's the thing. We know that we have a shortage of homes and housing, and the cost of housing is too expensive for far too many people. We know that young families need support to raise their children. And I intend on extending a tax cut for those families of $6,000, which is the largest child tax credit that we have given in a long time. So that those young families can afford to buy a crib, buy a car seat, buy clothes for their children.

Now, there were instances in which former President Trump allowed himself to be distracted, and he left a few key issues lying on the table. His reply on the Russia/Ukraine war was unclear, and he didn't expand on it, other than to say he would have a negotiated end to the conflict if reelected. He talked very little about China, which nation represents a serious geopolitical threat to the United States and our Pacific allies, other than a brief statement about tariffs.

The Ugly

The absolute worst aspect of this entire debate was the moderators. It was a shocking and disgusting display of naked partisanship, and in a sane world, would have been roundly condemned by honest brokers of information everywhere. Some opinion journalists have called out the shameful performance, but the legacy media has little to say about it.

Megyn Kelly Goes Scorched Earth on the ABC Moderators

David Muir and Linsey Davis's open partisanship is something that should never have been allowed to happen. It should never be allowed to happen again. The GOP has faced this time and time again, forcing us to wonder when they will learn the obvious lesson and start insisting on neutral ground for these debates.

There is, of course, the possibility that this may well backfire on the legacy media and the Harris campaign. The display of partisanship was so transparent and obvious that even people on the fence may well have been put off by that, but it will be at least a week before we see any indications of that happening, if it does.

The Harris campaign is now indicating that they will seek another debate. They may well be feeling that Kamala Harris did better than she actually did and are mustering up a little hubris, or it may be that they see that the Queen of Word Salads didn't answer any questions in any substantive way, despite the moderators doing everything they could short of back-rubs to prop her up. But the Trump campaign, if there is to be another debate - and there should be - needs to insist on a different format. What would work to their advantage would be a real debate - unmoderated, on a specific topic, with each candidate given 45 minutes each to make their argument and 30 minutes each for rebuttals.

But we all know that's not going to happen.

We're moving deeper into the election season, and things are only going to get hotter and heavier. If you want to keep up with events and avail yourself of the best reporting and commentary, you should consider upgrading to a VIP account. A Gold account gets you access to all of the Townhall Media sites in addition to RedState. Your subscription also helps us bring you the best content possible. Use promo code SAVEAMERICA for a 50% discount!