David Reel: Presidential debates and happy endings
The first and perhaps only debate for the 2024 presidential general election between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, held on September 10th, is history.
Throughout their long history these debates have resulted in pre-debate and post-debate disagreements.
Before the most recent debate, the Harris campaign adamantly refused to consider an offer from Fox News, strongly favored by the Trump campaign for Fox News to host a debate.
Following one of the first of three televised presidential debates in 1960, thinking on the winner was mixed. A majority of voters who watched that debate on television responded in a post-debate survey that John F. Kennedy won the debate. A majority of voters who listened to that debate on the radio responded in a post-debate survey that Nixon won the debate.
This year’s on-again, off-again debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris sponsored by ABC had a happy ending for many voters. They were happy when the pre-debate hype and the actual debate ended.
While the pre-debate hype and actual debate are over, there have been and will continue to be intense discussions about the September 10th debate between the candidates and their most steadfast supporters.
Topics for the post-debate debates include, but are not limited to: who won, why they won, who lost, why they lost, the fairness of the moderators, the questions posed to each candidate by the moderators, incomplete candidate answers to certain questions from the moderators, the body language of the moderators, one moderator’s recent acknowledgement of why he chose to aggressively pursue fact-checking a number of Trump’s answers during the debate, the validity of his fact checking observations, the need for at least one more debate, and even the earrings worn by Kamala Harris during the debate.
Not surprisingly, in many cases, the varied answers to those post-debate debate questions are the result of the thinking on political messaging by communications guru Frank Luntz and two published works in the Washington Post on trust in the media. These observations have appeared in previous commentaries of mine, but all bear repeating here.
Luntz has observed, “It’s not what you say or write, it is what people hear or read. You can have the best message in the world, but the person on the receiving end will always understand it through the prism of their own emotions, preconceptions, prejudices, and preexisting beliefs.”
No doubt the Trump campaign is fully aware of and will work hard to widely distribute the following recent and scathing observations by the Washington Post Editorial Board, and Post columnist Philip Bump.
The Post’s editorial board cited a Post and Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University survey reporting only three in ten residents of six of the most important states in this year’s presidential election trust the media will fairly and accurately report political news.
Bump has written in the Post, “Americans simply don’t trust the media, particularly when it comes to politics.”
If and how those Washington Post observations may resonate with voters remains to be seen.
We do know every political campaign will have unexpected opportunities and unexpected challenges.
The question is always when and how will they play out.
For Donald Trump, an unexpected opportunity (now moot) was having President Joe Biden as his opponent when it was increasingly clear Biden was past his political prime.
For Donald Trump, an unexpected challenge was a debate where Kamala Harris exceeded expectations.
For Kamala Harris, an unexpected challenge was launching a presidential campaign on very short notice.
For Kamala Harris, an unexpected opportunity was a debate where she branded herself as a viable presidential candidate.
All things considered, this election is still far from over.
Before the debate, some polls showed Trump leading Harris in all key battleground states.
After the debate, some polls polling in some of those battleground states showed Harris leading Trump in some of the key battleground states.
Neither of the polls projected enough state wins to clinch victory in the Electoral College.
The bottom line is the outcome of their September 10 debate alone is not predictive of the November election outcome.
The voters who decide who prevails in November will not be significantly impacted by who won or who lost a 90-minute debate held in mid-September.
Most voters will vote based on their perceptions on which candidate cares most about their deepest concerns, and who best articulates a positive and achievable vision for the future.
As always, one and only one candidate will ultimately enjoy a happy ending in the upcoming presidential election.
David Reel is a public affairs/public relations consultant who serves as a trusted advisor on strategy, advocacy, and media matters. Born and raised in Harrisburg, he was formerly active in the government and political arenas in Harrisburg and Philadelphia. He now lives and works from Easton on Maryland’s Eastern Shore.
Happy ending? I wonder about that. Sept. 16 is the first date that counties in Pennsylvania must begin processing mail-in voting applications, but applicants (whomever they are) likely will not receive a mail-in ballot until October. Pennsylvania is one of the very few states – others include Alabama, Mississippi and North Dakota – that do not allow preprocessing of mail-in ballots. This designed chaos will repeat itself. Why?
No signature match is required for mail in voting in PA. The mail in balloting which also includes drop boxes is open to unprovable claims of massive cheating because of the complexity of the processes, black box programming, and lack of chain of custody. This could all be solved easily by use of paper ballots, verifying legal voters, and counting witnessed and verified by all parties at the local precincts so numbers are public immediately and cannot be altered as they pass down through the county and state. But our current leaders, supported by oligarchs and big business, want this current system. Why? No happy ending because PA voters already lost… when Biden and Trump became the official nominees. Correction: People voted for Biden to be the Democratic nominee, but Harris is the official nominee now. Trump is a deeply flawed candidate. But the Democrats are totally insane. Serious people aren’t sure if Trump is orchestrating his own assassination attempts. The current situation in PA is a mess. Our current governor is busy trying to balance the budget using illegal marijuana sales. Legacy media pushes obvious propaganda. November will be a mess.
Trump is deeply flawed and the democrats are insane. Is this a personal conclusion? Please do expand on your thinking. Trumps flaws are a matter of public record, going back 30+ years, including time with his father and including Wharton professors who privately confessed he was stupid. (Clever perhaps?). But as a lifelong R who has had to recant any support for R candidates, I’d love to understand why you declare Ds insane, and what is the downside TO THE COUNTRY (vs wealthy 2% who want continued demonization of “others” along with favorable targeted tax treatments). Kamala Harris is the arranged marriage in this case. You might not love her, but imho she is competent to do the job. It’s a broken system that threatens us. A President is not a King, just a Chief Executive. DJT wants the power to pardon himself and to continue to increase his fortune. Harris wants to elevate the middle class to some level of functionality. And while Rs and others loudly warn of immigrants, I cannot think of a single person who does not knowingly include immigrants (documented or otherwise) in their inner circle. The jobs we don’t want are routinely filled by people we do not investigate. Who does your landscaping, cleaning, babysitting, car washing, grunt work, and more?
So please tell me the risks to filling a job like POTUS with someone not looking for a pardon.