🇺🇸 Three vs One—But Donald Trump Was His Own Worst Enemy

Trump failed in his most important task: maintaining discipline to convince undecided voters still wavering between the two presidential alternatives.

Harris and Trump each faced their own set of challenges ahead of the presidential debate in Philadelphia. Harris had to show voters who she is and what she stands for. Trump needed to present himself as electable for a broader voter base, displaying a more disciplined side of himself.

Harris was better at her task than Trump with his.

Trump had to deal with the moderator's double standards (more on that later) and a three vs lone-dynamic in the studio. He had to overcome this and keep his composure.

Trump’s failure to do so may have cost him the presidency.

At the beginning of the debate, it seemed like the former president was on track. Trump responded effectively to Harris' rehearsed opening. He contrasted his own resume with hers and corrected her claims. Refuting false claims that he would be an opponent of IVF, or seek to impose a national abortion ban. He compared the conditions facing the middle class under his administration and that of Biden/Harris. He explained that many of the jobs that Harris took credit for having created were in fact "bounce-back jobs”, which were the results of his policies but temporarily lost during the pandemic.

He should have stuck to these points that speak for themselves. These are issues that most center voters—who are crucial to win over—see and experience firsthand, but may need to be reminded of.

Prices in grocery stores. Tighter budgets. Crime and insecurity on the streets. Politically motivated lawsuits. An increasingly destabilized surrounding world. Illegal immigration from across the southern border with Mexico. Arbitrary approaches to freedom of speech.

And importantly: what Trump intends to do about all of this.

Instead, he spent the rest of the debate getting caught up in sensational—and disputed—claims that he was characteristically poignant in formulation as well.

At the 33rd minute:

“In Springfield they’re eating the dogs, the people that came in, they’re eating the cats, they’re eating the pets of the people that live there.”

Moderator David Muir interrupted, saying that the city denies there being any evidence of this, to which Trump replied:

“Well, I’ve seen people on television. People on television are saying that their dogs were taken and used for food.”

Ordinary Americans are likely less worried about their pets being skinned and cooked for food than about the overall impact of illegal immigration on their daily lives and the future of the country.

This takes the form of losing control over who enters, and what they do. And in terms of strain on an already stressed welfare system. As well as concerns over national security.

Even if claims about pet-eating migrants in Ohio turn out to be true, it’s hard to follow how referencing them would lead Trump to the White House. His rhetoric risks alienating the new voters he needs. Calling Kamala Harris a “Marxist”, warning that her immigration policy turns the U.S. into a “Venezuela on steroids” may resonate more with those who long ago decided to vote for him. Not with those who are still undecided. It would have been wiser pointing to Kamala's actual proposals, and how these have swayed as soon as public opinion has changed.

The stigma attached to voting for Donald Trump has started to fade. More and more “atypical” Trump voters seem willing to openly show their support—from former Democratic politicians to Wall Street types, tech moguls, and big-city Americans. These people are far removed from the typical image of his supporters wearing red MAGA caps. They are voters who support Trump largely in protest against the current direction of the Democratic Party.

For Trump, the purpose of the debate was to expand this group of swing voters, to present himself as a candidate electable to a broader electorate.

He had a smash opportunity. According to The New York Times, he was leading by one percentage point before the debate. A position that shifted as the debate progressed. Betting sites revised their odds in real-time.

The moderators’ journalistic double standards didn’t make it easy for Trump. They were meticulous in fact-checking his statements, while letting Harris off the hook again and again. ABC’s David Muir even questioned whether Trump was really being sarcastic when he commented on losing the election, instead of letting the voters decide for themselves. Harris was treated with more leniency. She was allowed to make false claims about everything from January 6th and Trump’s stance on IVF to his comments about a “bloodbath” and “fine people on both sides” without any interventions on part of the moderators.

Someone aspiring to the world’s most important office—the President of the United States—must be able to keep their calm in situations such as the one that arose during this debate.

It probably would have been easier for viewers and voters to see through this double standard had Trump responded with more composure. Had he behaved with the statesmanship he is required to demonstrate.

Instead, he became his own worst enemy and made it easy for the moderators and Harris to close ranks against him.

He made Harris appear like the adult in the room when she said, “As I said, you’re gonna hear a bunch of lies.”

In short, Trump did Harris a favor.