You could see where this was headed from the start when debate co-host David Muir asked Vice President Kamala Harris the question Ronald Reagan asked Americans to ponder when he debated Jimmy Carter in October 1980: “Are you better off than you were four years ago?”

A confident Harris would have answered “yes,” but knowing the polls show a large majority of Americans would answer “no,” Harris pivoted to a personal story and pivoted again to how much more she would “invest” (code word for spend) while again trashing “billionaires” as Democrats like to do in their promotion of envy, greed and entitlement.

What viewers saw was a version of the “new Nixon.” Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont “Democratic-Socialist,” was right when he suggested Harris has moved more to the center to win votes, but if elected will return to her “progressive” ways.

Overnight conversions may have some credibility when it comes to religion, depending on one’s consistency, but in politics it appears to be pandering to voters. How many times have we seen politicians run one way and govern another?

Let’s start with the optics. It was good they shook hands at the start, but Harris was far more positive, energetic and optimistic than Trump, who regurgitated his familiar grievances about the 2020 election, which he lost, but still can’t accept the fact. Trump never looked at Harris and had a dour expression on his face throughout. Harris sometimes appeared condescending and occasionally had an expression like you would have if you thought someone was sad and pathetic. Trump never smiled. Harris did.

As for substance, David Muir and Linsey Davis sometimes fact-checked Trump, but never Harris. They especially did not ask Harris if she still wants to impose price controls on everyday items, like food and gasoline, when controls have never worked. That was a missed opportunity.

There were no questions about the record $35 trillion debt or Trump’s suggestion of an outside auditor to trim the size and cost of the federal government. Other than eliminating the Department of Education, where would he begin and since Social Security and Medicare are the main drivers of the debt, how would they reform these programs before they run out of money?

Trump scored on Afghanistan and the unwieldy withdrawal that caused the death of 13 service members. Harris scored when Trump talked about crime being up, much of it he said due to migrants. She retorted that it’s “ so rich coming from someone who has been prosecuted for national security crimes,” and found guilty of 34 felonies with more trials involving national security possibly to come.

Trump got in the “I’m talking” line he thought Harris wanted to use against him, along with the “are you better off” zinger borrowed from Reagan. Harris scored by accusing Trump of cuddling up to dictators who flatter his ego.

I thought Harris was weak on Israel and Gaza. She repeated the stale line about a “two-state solution,” which is only a solution for Israel’s enemies who have vowed to destroy the Jewish state. Trump claimed, without evidence, that Harris “hates Israel.” Trump scored when he pointed out Harris’ many flips on issues, most of which are recent, including doing away with private health insurance, causing one to question her sincerity.

Trump closed by asking the obvious question: Why hasn’t Harris done in three and a half years what she promises to do if elected president? Harris closed with another obvious statement: “We have different visions for the future.”

That’s why there should be a second debate. A top Harris campaign official seemed to agree to one in October. The public deserves to hear more. I’d call this one a plus for Harris when it came to image and a plus for Trump on issues. In other words, a draw.

©2024 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.