Presidential Debates and Happy Endings by David Reel

The first and perhaps only debate for the 2024 presidential general election, which was held on September 10th, is history.

Throughout their long history, these debates have always experienced pre-debate and post-debate disagreements.

After one of the first of three televised presidential debates in 1960, there was disagreement on the winner. A majority of voters who watched that debate on television responded in a post-debate survey that John F. Kennedy won. A majority of voters who listened to that debate on the radio responded in a post-debate survey that Nixon won.

Prior to the most recent debate, the Harris campaign adamantly refused to consider an offer from Fox News to host a debate, an offer strongly favored by the Trump campaign.

This year’s on-again, off- again debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris sponsored by ABC did have 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 that he chose to aggressively pursue fact-checking a number of Trump’s answers during the debate, the validity of his fact-checking observations during the debate, 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 Washington Post columnist Philip Bloom that I referenced in a previous commentary.

The Post’s editorial board cited a recent 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 recently wrote in the Post — “Americans simply don’t trust the media, particularly when it comes to politics.”

If and how those Washington Post observations may be viewed by voters remains to be seen.

The same is true on the breaking news on a second assassination attempt on Donald Trump.

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.

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.

I expect most independent and undecided 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 and public relations consultant who lives in Easton.