During Tuesday's debate, Harris was in command; Trump was incoherent
09:39 Share

Tuesday night at 9 o'clock, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris strode onto the debate stage at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia. Kamala Harris, what's up? Good to see you. Have fun. Thank you.

In something of the ultimate power move, Harris walked over to Trump and held out her hand to shake. Some observers noted Trump seemed reluctant or caught off guard by the act of civility. Then it was off to the races, and it became clear what Harris's strategy was, beat the former president. And he latched on hook, line, and sinker.

is that people start leaving his rallies early out of exhaustion and boredom. 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. Using precious debate time to talk about crowd size was not the only time that Trump went off message. In Springfield, they're eating the dogs, the people that came in. They're eating the cats. They're eating...

They're eating the pets of the people that live there. Trump is talking there about a debunked conspiracy theory about Haitian migrants eating pets in an Ohio town. During these moments, when Trump veered off to extremes or repeated falsehoods, the vice president lifted her eyebrows as if to say, really? What?

Or laughed. Or propped her hand on her chin with a smirk. Or sighed, as if in disbelief. As one CNN commentator put it, And then there were the times when Trump seemed to miss his old opponent.

Harris's response?

Consider This. Vice President Kamala Harris is widely seen as the winner of Tuesday's debate. With the election neck and neck, will it make a difference? From NPR, I'm Mary Louise Kelly. Support comes from our 2024 lead sponsor of Consider This, Anthropic.

Claude by Anthropic is AI for everyone. Claude offers groundbreaking intelligence at a price that works for heavy-duty tasks. Claude can generate code, help with writing, and reason through hard problems better than any model before. Claude pushes the creative and performance limits of what you can accomplish with AI. Join the groundswell of people that trust Anthropic with their AI tasks. Discover how Claude can help you at anthropic.com slash Claude.

This message comes from NPR sponsor, Viore, a new perspective on performance apparel. Check out the latest Dream Knit collection by visiting viore.com slash NPR for 20% off your first purchase. Exclusions apply. Visit the website for full terms and conditions.

♪♪♪

It's Consider This from NPR. Last night's presidential debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump was the first and possibly the last time we will see the two candidates face off. Harris seems to have come out on top.

But the race for the White House is in virtual ties across key battleground states. Will this one debate make a difference? Here to read the tea leaves are NPR senior political editor and correspondent Domenico Montanaro and NPR media correspondent David Fulkenflik.

So now that y'all have had a chance to sleep on it, Domenico, you first. What was your major takeaway from last night's debate? I've slept on it and my takeaway has not changed. The debate was not really close. I mean arguably this was the best handling of Trump by any candidate that's debated him in what Kamala Harris was able to do. She baited him on several things, mentioning the Wharton School debate.

Economists not liking his economic plan. That's, of course, where Trump went to school for undergraduate at the University of Pennsylvania. As he mentioned, as he would have his way to tell us. Exactly. You know, she talked about his crowds, which really derailed him. There were lots of other examples. And Trump took the bait every single time. She sort of flipped the script on masculinity. She really was the alpha in this debate from beginning to end, which is usually his stance at these debates.

And Trump did so many things that presidential debate coaches would tell you not to do. Like, for example, instead of hammering home a rational point about immigration and a small town not having the resources to respond to an influx of migrants, he instead used this provocative and debunked conspiracy about immigrants in the U.S. illegally eating cats and dogs. Never mind that he got the conspiracy wrong because it was about ducks, not dogs, and Harris was able to paint him as extreme.

I want to ask, speaking of debunking conspiracies and other things, you know, back in the June debate, the one that was between Trump and President Biden, we did not hear fact checks in real time from the moderators. Last night we did. That was ABC's David Muir and Lindsay Davis. David Fokenflik, what impact did that have?

Sure. And back in June, you know, CNN traded that for the right to go after questions that hadn't been answered. In this case, you know, you got to be careful because if you get it wrong, as we've learned in the past, it becomes a huge partisan focal point. In this instance, I would say the fact checks were, you know, restrained.

focused, measured, quiet and concise. You know, we talked about the question of animals and this conspiracy theory. Let's listen to David Muir after Trump accused Haitian immigrants in a small Ohio city of eating pets. 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 had been no credible reports of specific claims of pets being harmed, injured or abused by individuals.

within the immigrant community. Well, I've seen people on television. Let me just say here, this is the... 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. I'm not taking this from television. But the people on television are saying their dog was eaten.

So, you know, in past debates, when people tried fact checking, they became part of the debate. And then since I'd say this was just a tempered measure. You know, Amir's tone here was really a thing that stood out to me because it was pretty lightly fact checked. Right. And Republicans try to cast these fact checks as bias because there were four last night. All four were toward things that Trump had said. But it's just a reality of the fact that Trump just says more things more often that are blatantly false and he repeats them.

David, stay with the question of bias, perception of bias. How is this being characterized in media coverage that you're tracking today? Well, there are kind of three baskets, I would say, of coverage. You've seen folks who are basically partisans on one side or the other. I'd say you'd seen folks who are reflecting what we've heard from a colleague, Domenico, last night and today.

And I'd say you'd see those who are so tempered as to be the point of kind of misrepresenting saying, well, you know, they went at each other in a fiery debate. That didn't really capture what happened last night. But you know what did happen? Trump unified folks on, you know, say all three major cable networks, including Fox's Brit Hume, because they were all trying to capture what Domenico got at. Here was Brit Hume, a former chief political anchor for Fox News and often a conservative voice. Here's what Brit had to say last night. Make no mistake about it.

Trump had a bad night. He rose to debate repeatedly when she baited him, something I'm sure his advisers had begged him not to do. And, you know, we saw in what's called the spin room after the debate, that's where people representing various campaigns or candidates go in to try to tell reporters how they should think about it and frame it. Trump entered the room to do his own spin. He failed.

didn't feel he could trust surrogates to make up what he failed to do in the debate itself. Yeah. Domenico, hop back in. Yeah. Yeah. No. And I was going to say, you know, David mentions this idea of the way that this has been framed. And sometimes I find that our colleagues really have a difficult time in trying to just say what they know to be independently, verifiably true. And it's been sort of dubbed "sane washing," which is sort of taking something that Trump says that might be incoherent,

then making it a subject verb object thing that then is seemingly more rational and understandable also i have to say about the going into the spin room not usually the thing that a presidential candidate who thinks they did well in a debate does you would normally delegate that to uh to your surrogates yeah okay so i mean bottom line big picture will this debate change voters minds will it help people who still haven't made up their minds make up their mind at domenico it's

It certainly could. I mean, 30 percent of the people in our survey in the NPR PBS News Marist survey said that they, you know, are going to be looking at this debate as something that could help change their minds. But you have to realize that this is a very, very, very divided country. Republicans have had an opportunity for almost a decade to move away from Trump and they have not chosen to do that. I would not expect that they would after this either. You know, Harris is

has done everything right, you could argue, since getting in this race. She's tacked to the middle, raised half a billion dollars, staffed up, organizing in swing states. Now she out-debated Trump, and she really still could lose. I mean, this is not just like a could, it's still a coin flip because these seven states, the seven swing states we're watching closely, are more conservative than the rest of the country at large. And, you know, I think it is reflective of just how divided we are.

That is NPR's Domenico Montanaro and David Fokkenflik. Thank you to you both. You're welcome. You bet.

This episode was produced by Tyler Bartlam with audio engineering by Neil T. Vaught. It was edited by Dana Farrington, Emily Kopp, and Courtney Dourning. Our executive producer is Sammy Yenigan. And one more thing, before we go, you can now enjoy the Consider This newsletter. We still help you break down a major story of the day, and you will also get to know our producers and hosts and some moments of joy from the All Things Considered team.

You can sign up at npr.org slash consider this newsletter. It's Consider This from NPR. I'm Mary Louise Kelly.

This message comes from NPR sponsor, Leesa. Good sleep should come naturally, and with the new Natural Hybrid mattress, it can. A collaboration between Leesa and West Elm, the Natural Hybrid is expertly crafted from natural latex, natural wool, and certified safe foams to elevate your sleep sanctuary and support a greener tomorrow. Plus, every purchase helps fuel Leesa's work with shelters and those in need.

Visit Lisa.com to learn more. That's L-E-E-S-A dot com. This message is brought to you by Warby Parker. Their glasses start at $95, including anti-reflective, scratch-resistant prescription lenses that block 100% of UV rays. Try five pairs of frames at home for free. Go to WarbyParker.com slash covered.

Want to hear this podcast without sponsor breaks? Amazon Prime members can listen to Consider This sponsor-free through Amazon Music. Or you can also support NPR's vital journalism and get Consider This Plus at plus.npr.org. That's plus.npr.org.