To be clear, there is little sign at this stage of the presidential race that Donald Trump is destined to lose. According to the polls and the betting markets, the only reasonable conclusion one can reach currently is that the outcome is a toss-up.
Nonetheless, there is no denying that the debates have hobbled Trump and have caused him to lose momentum, and, lest we forget, in such a close contest, every drop, every iota, of momentum is precious and could ultimately be determinative.
The first mistake Trump made vis-à-vis the debates was to announce that he would face off against Joe Biden “anytime, anywhere.” This forfeited Trump’s leverage over the timing and the venue(s), needless to say, and led to an early debate on CNN that, while it yielded a Trump “win” over Biden, also facilitated a successful Democratic Party coup that ousted Biden, a weak candidate, and replaced him with, by most accounts, a younger and abler competitor.
Thus, in the grand scheme of things, the big loser of the June debate was … Trump himself. And it need not have been so. Had Trump not given the coup plotters an opening, the Democrats would be saddled with Biden to this day.
Because Trump had already agreed to debate his opponent, who was then Biden, on CNN and ABC, he was essentially boxed in and had to accept a September debate against Kamala Harris on ABC — a network whose documented hostility to Trump and Republicans made it highly unlikely that the questioning and moderation would be congenial. Quite predictably, it wasn’t. Harris put forth a performance that exceeded expectations — especially those of Trumpers, Republicans and conservatives — while Trump seemed defensive, repetitive and poorly versed in policy and facts. Meanwhile, ABC’s crack team did its best to kick Trump while he was down.
I would like to suggest, however, that Trump’s biggest failures in the recent debate do not flow from what he said, or what Harris said in response. The most shocking and egregious fumbles that Trump made lie in what he didn’t say, and in the golden opportunities that he missed. These omissions lead one to question whether Trump’s political instincts are as sharp as they used to be.
First, in discussing abortion, Trump talked up the virtues of the overturning of Roe v. Wade and the consequent empowerment of the states. That is a sound approach, but what Trump did not do was personalize the issue. Harris did: she made it clear that real women are suffering because of the abortion restrictions passed by Republicans at the state level. The natural retort, which Trump failed to make, is that real babies are being born, and actual human lives are being saved, by abortion restrictions as well.
At the very least, Trump could have suggested that the issue is a complicated one and there are valid reasons — politically, constitutionally, morally, emotionally, religiously, etc. — to respect both sides.
Second, both candidates were asked a question about race and identity, which was a perfect opportunity to make their pitches to voters of color. Harris did so, and Trump did not. Obviously, one of Trump’s most serious weaknesses as a candidate is that he is widely perceived to be a racist and a sexist. Indeed, Democrats, progressives and so-called journalists have invested much time and energy in painting him as a bigot. Thus, when Trump has a chance to build bridges with minority and female voters, he should probably make the effort.
He has plenty of potential ammunition: from the legions of minority and women voters who already support him, to the gains that people of color and women made during his first administration, to the fact that Democrats so often take these demographics for granted and do not genuinely care about their interests. Trump could have attempted to appeal to this massive and growing component of the electorate in countless ways. He didn’t even try, which is political malpractice.
Third, Trump did not mention Harris’ long period of self-isolation after her crowning as the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee, including her refusal to give press conferences or do one-on-one interviews. He didn’t mention in any detail her record as the San Francisco district attorney or as California’s attorney general, which could be used to peg her as a typical Bay Area leftist. He didn’t allude to her steadfast support for Biden, up to the moment that she stabbed him in the back and took his place as her party’s standard-bearer.
In short, Trump missed countless opportunities to attack Harris based on her record, her ideology, her trustworthiness and other personal defects.
Fourth, Trump did not push back against hostile questioning regarding Jan. 6 and his rejection of the results of the 2020 election by focusing instead on the Democrats’ and the Biden administration’s sponsorship of censorship and their attempts to keep their political opponents off the ballot. Why not put Democrats on the defensive on the issue of “democracy” whenever possible? Trump did address lawfare and the “weaponization” of the justice system against him personally, but he might have driven home these points by underlining the close connections between the prosecutors who are targeting him and the White House, and he might also have pointed out to the American people that, if he, a candidate for president and a former president, can be a victim of lawfare, then they, as ordinary citizens, are arguably even more exposed to persecution and prosecution.
In other words, no one is safe when the rule of law breaks down.
Lastly, there is a burning issue in American political life that admittedly no politician likes to talk about, but every educated and informed voter finds highly concerning: our deteriorating fiscal situation. With recent yearly deficits of $1 trillion to $3 trillion, and a debt-to-GDP ratio that is now way above the danger point of 100% — meaning that our $35 trillion debt exceeds our $27 trillion economy — America simply cannot afford to keep spending wildly, while also cutting taxes, which is the apparent preference of both Trump and Harris.
Something has to give, and our president, or our future president, needs to be straight with us and lay out the sacrifices that will have to be made to restore our financial soundness and stability. Almost every Republican and conservative, and many independents, understand this, but Trump said nothing that might appease those voters who are concerned about nation’s fiscal future. In fact, he showed no awareness of the problem.
Trump’s errors and omissions in the recent debate were serious. For some people watching, they may even be disqualifying. There are still two months left for Trump, JD Vance and their many capable surrogates to address some of these gaping holes in Trump’s messaging, and to reassure the American people that, on these critical issues, while the GOP may not have all the answers, it will not be altogether silent.
(Dr. Nicholas L. Waddy is an associate professor of history at SUNY Alfred and blogs at www.waddyisright.com.)
