Get all your news in one place.
100’s of premium titles.
One app.
Start reading
Reason
Reason
Christian Britschgi

Trump Takes the Bait

Vice President Kamala Harris did not make a good case for herself at last night's presidential debate. But she did get former President Donald Trump to make the case against himself and that was enough.

Throughout the 90-minute debate hosted by ABC in Philadelphia, Harris effectively baited Trump into going on blustering, bizarre riffs that mostly served to highlight his weaknesses as a candidate.

A representative snippet was when debate moderators asked Harris why the Biden administration waited so long to place more restrictions on migrants' ability to claim asylum in the U.S. given the historic high levels of illegal border crossings.

Harris offered the briefest of defenses of her record, saying only that as a former prosecutor she's prosecuted transnational gangs and that she supported a bill (opposed by Trump) that would have created more border guards.

Then, she quickly pivoted to a dig at Trump's rallies, saying "You will see during the course of his rallies, he talks about fictional characters like Hannibal Lecter, he will talk about [how] windmills cause cancer. And what you will also notice is that people start leaving his rallies early out of exhaustion and boredom."

That's a non sequitur and kind of cheap shot. It's also a massive deflection from the immediate topic at hand, border enforcement, which is a weak issue for Harris (her portfolio includes reducing migration from Central America) and a strong one for Trump.

Rather than immediately bring the conversation back to the border, Trump defended the size of his crowds ("People don't leave my rallies, we have the biggest rallies, the most incredible rallies in the history of politics"), attacked Harris for allegedly paying people to attend her rallies, and then went on an extended riff about how immigrants are eating people's pets in Springfield, Ohio, (a seemingly unfounded claim that's been circulating in the less reputable corners of right-wing media).

A similar back-and-forth happened time and again in the debate. Harris would offer a rudimentary defense of her record, perhaps engage in some pablum about Americans' hopes and dreams, and then bait Trump into going on extended "too online" free association that's hard to follow for all but the most dedicated Truth Social users.

The takeaways for libertarians and fellow-traveling liberty-likers were few indeed. No one on stage was particularly interested in putting themselves forward as the candidate for limited government voters.

The debate was a big government slugfest. And in that historic clash between "Facebook dad" and "wine mom," wine mom had the better go of it.

Does it Matter? The immediate post-debate polls of voters all generally show that people thought Harris won the debate.

The betting markets nimbly downgraded Trump's chances of winning the election.

Conservatives and Trump supporters mostly stuck to attacking the debate moderators for their alleged pro-Harris bias—a sign that their candidate did not perform all that well.

The big question is whether this will matter for the ultimate result of the race.

Veteran debate watchers might remember Trump's past performance in his final debate with Hilary Clinton in 2016 when he was similarly blustering, unfocused, and quick to devolve into hard-to-follow riffs. At the end of the day, he won that election.

This year's presidential election is a close race and has been ever since Harris took over at the top of the ticket. People are very polarized and mostly know how they're going to vote. Odds are there are not too many people ready to be moved by a single debate performance.


Scenes from Washington, D.C.: The owners of Indian restaurant Indigo want to turn a vacant former corner store in D.C.'s Bloomingdale neighborhood into their next location. That sounds like a fine thing for a business to do and it's a win for the neighborhood. Opposing it, naturally, is the local Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC), which voted to oppose Indigo's request for a liquor license.

The new restaurant would "have a negative effect on peace, quiet, order, and parking in the neighborhood," said the ANC, per reporting from Washington Business Journal.

ANCs, basically hyperlocal central committees of busybodies, don't have any formal veto power over Indigo's plans. But their opinions are supposed to be given "great weight" by city agencies considering whether to grant a liquor license, approve a zoning change, etc.


QUICK HITS

  • SpaceX launched an all-private crew on Thursday into orbit, with plans to conduct the first space walk of non-government employees.
  • Mexico's Legislature approved an overhaul of its judicial system that will have judges elected by popular vote. The changes sparked heated protests in Mexico itself, and provoked worry among investors who fear a politicized judiciary, reports The Wall Street Journal.
  • Taylor Swift makes a presidential endorsement.
  • The German government is considering tougher controls on immigration.
  • Inflation starts to tick back up.
  • You can't say it wasn't interesting:

  • The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) continues to exploit the anniversary of 9/11 to make the case for their useless, no-good agency.

 

The post Trump Takes the Bait appeared first on Reason.com.

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100’s of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
Our Picks
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.