Biglaw

3 Novel Questions About The Presidential Debate

When you're infused with personal bias, there's nowhere to turn for a neutral assessment of a debate.

By  
on
Vice President Kamala Harris Speaks At Sigma Gamma Rho Sorority’s Boule In Houston

(Photo by Brandon Bell/Getty Images)

Watching the presidential debate last week, I had three questions in my mind:

Question 1: Was it possible for Donald Trump to prepare properly?

Before the debate, Trump’s campaign staff, and the entire sentient western world, knew that Kamala Harris would try to get under his skin during the debate. To prepare for that, Trump should have asked someone to play his opponent and see what mock-Harris could do to get under Trump’s skin. This would have given Trump a chance to learn how to ignore the needling.

During preparation, mock-Harris would have said, in some order:

  1. Foreign leaders are laughing at Trump.
  2. Unlike Trump, who evaded the draft, John McCain was a true war hero.
  3. Trump lost the 2020 election.
  4. Trump’s basically a weak guy and a loser.
  5. As juries have held, Trump has committed both sexual assault and multiple felonies.
  6. Trump’s rallies are boring, and people walk out on Trump.
  7. Probably a bunch of other stuff.

That would have been great preparation; it’s exactly what Trump needed. But how long do you suppose mock-Harris would have remained employed by the Trump campaign? Even though mock-Harris would have been hired to do exactly what I’ve described, I bet Trump would have fired mock-Harris before the first debate prep session was over. I don’t think Trump can take this, even when his campaign has requested it and it’s for his own good.

Sponsored

It simply wasn’t possible for Trump to prepare for the debate with Harris.

This leads to Question 2: Do you really want this guy to be president?

Setting: The Situation Room in the White House.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: “Mr. President, the Russians have launched a surprise nuclear first strike. Russian nuclear missiles are heading here over the North Pole. Roughly 100 million Americans will be dead in seven minutes. Also, the Canadian prime minister said that people walk out of your campaign rallies because you’re boring.”

Trump: “Quick! Get me the nuclear codes! We have to nuke Canada!”

Sponsored

I’m not afraid of the phone ringing at 3 a.m. and Trump having to field an emergency. I’m afraid of Trump fielding absolutely any situation against any opponent who has a brain.

This leads to Question 3: How do you judge a debate when you already have strong opinions about the candidates?

I hate Trump. I’m embarrassed to live in a country where apparently roughly half of us are conned by this buffoon. How can we be such morons?

I was therefore watching the debate thinking, “I’m pretty sure Harris is cleaning Trump’s clock. But I hate Trump. Perhaps my predispositions bias me. What would a neutral person think of what’s going on?”

After the debate, I checked what television had to say. In the spin rooms, the Democrats were saying that Harris won; the Republicans were saying that Trump won. Tim Walz and Josh Shapiro said Harris kicked Trump’s ass. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio said Trump kicked Harris’ ass. Why do we bother listening to what those clowns have to say?

Rachel Maddow said that Harris won in a landslide. Sean Hannity said that … the moderators weren’t fair. Ha! This is my first real indication that Harris won. If the debate were even close, Hannity would be saying that Trump won; instead, he’s whining about the moderators. Good sign.

News breaks that Harris offered Trump a rematch. Democrats say: “See? Harris is so confident that she can beat Trump that she’ll do it again.” Republicans say: “See? It’s like pick-up basketball. If you lose, you immediately ask to play for double or nothing. This proved that Trump won.” Both arguments are plausible; I don’t know what to think.

Taylor Swift endorsed Harris. Democrats say, “We’re delighted to have the support of this cultural icon.” Republicans say. “Only if you lose do you ask Taylor Swift to give an endorsement a half hour after a debate. This was meant to distract attention from the result of the debate.” Both arguments are plausible; I don’t know what to think.

See? When you’re infused with personal bias, there’s nowhere to turn for a neutral assessment of a debate.

I next looked to political betting markets, where people actually wager money on who they think will win an election. Betting on elections is illegal in the United States, so the bettors are foreigners, but, within minutes after the debate, the betting markets are saying that Harris is more likely to win the election than she was before. That’s an unbiased data point.

The next morning, the value of DJT stock — stock in Trump’s new media company — had dropped by 5% or 10%. Again, that’s real people — this time including Americans, and likely including many Republicans — who are wagering real money on something with a value likely to rise and fall along with Trump’s fortunes. If DJT stock is down, then Trump lost.

Finally, the snap polls came out. They say Harris won overwhelmingly.

By the time this article is published, actual polls, taken after the debate, are likely to have appeared. At that point, we’ll really know the truth.

That leaves only my last questions about the debate, but they’re not so novel: What did undecided voters think about the debate, and will the debate have any lasting effect on the race for president?

Mark Herrmann spent 17 years as a partner at a leading international law firm and later oversaw litigation, compliance and employment matters at a large international company. He is the author of The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Practicing Law and Drug and Device Product Liability Litigation Strategy (affiliate links). You can reach him by email at [email protected].

Topics

, , , ,