Taking the Bait
Lots of folks on the political right have bemoaned the fact that the deck was stacked against Donald Trump in Tuesday’s debate.
“Three against one,” they cry, saying the two ABC moderators, along with Kamala Harris, were against him. They cut him off when he was making a valid point…they fact-checked him and not her…and so on, and so on.
Presuming for the sake of argument that is all accurate…none of it should have been a surprise. Those same folks complaining now are the ones who nodded when it was said that ABC was “the worst,” that all the rules favored Harris, etc.
But…and this is the key…he didn’t have to take the bait when it was offered.
He did not have to make it personal. He did not have to relitigate the 2020 election. He could have cited a few key statistics—like inflation rate then and now, gas prices then and now—to make the point that we were far better off four years ago than we are now.
But he did not, and that was a missed opportunity on a number of fronts.
I very much doubt anyone who was voting for Mr. Trump going into the debate now are against him. I very much doubt anyone who was voting for Ms. Harris going in to the debate now are against her. The die has been cast among supporters long ago, because the truth is that there is a clear and stark difference between the candidates on policies.
And I would suggest that among those truly undecided about if they are voting, or for whom, Taylor Swift’s endorsement post-debate will carry far more weight (for good or bad) than anything on that stage in Philadelphia.
But he didn’t have to take the bait. And that’s why even Trump supporters are disappointed as debate week comes to a close.
