Earlier today, Ed pointed to some evidence that Kamala Harris' debate performance didn't go over as well with voters as it seems to have with the media. Here's another case in point. The NY Times also points a clear divide between the reaction of pundits and that of undecided voters.
Bob and Sharon Reed, both 77-year-old retired teachers who live on a farm in central Pennsylvania, had high hopes for the debate between Ms. Harris and former President Donald Trump. They thought that they would come away with a candidate to support in November.
But, Ms. Reed said, “It was all disappointing.”...
Immediate reaction from political analysts favored Ms. Harris...But not all voters, especially those undecided few who could sway the election, were effusive about the vice president’s performance...
Voters said they were glad she has a tax and economic plan. But they want to know how it will become law when Washington is so polarized. They know she wants to give assistance to first-time home buyers, but doubted that it was realistic.
Of course some viewers were won over by Harris. The story mentions a 60-year-old in North Carolina who liked what she saw and is now going to vote for her. But other viewers watched the same debate and headed in the opposite direction.
Ms. Miller said that, while her heart pulls her to Ms. Harris’s potentially history-making candidacy, she finds herself thinking fondly of her old life.
“When Trump was in office — not going to lie — I was living way better,” she said. “I’ve never been so down as in the past four years. It’s been so hard for me.”...
Another voter in Arizona found himself leaning toward Trump, especially after watch the post-debate reactions from pundits, feeling as if he'd watched a different debate than the one they were describing.
The comments on this one are what you would expect, i.e. a bunch of angry Democrats frustrated that anyone is less than 100% certain about voting for Harris.
I have a difficult time stomaching undecided voters in an election where one of the candidates has all but promised he'll become an autocrat. We have a history of countries who ignored the warnings and treated electing an autocrat as business as usual. We saw what happened to them as they ignored the clear signals. And yet, we seem to have the same arrogance that it can't happen to us. Absolutely mind-boggling.
Most of the top comments are like this.
Okay please spare me with the policies. Anyone who watched that last night should not have any problem making up their mind unless they want to vote for the demented uncle who pops off on the porch. No contest and no lack of content on Harris'part. Tired of the false equivalency.
Finally, the Washington Post ran its own story about a group of 25 voters, all of whom leaned one way or another prior to the debate. The consensus there was that Harris out-performed Trump in the debate (23-2) but the shift in voting plans post debate was smaller. Prior to the debate, there were 10 voters leaning toward Trump, 12 leaning toward Harris. After the debate there were six leaning toward Trump, 15 toward Harris and the rest still undecided. The numbers don't add up to 25 because some voters were on the fence before and after the debate.
I think this is in line with what I saw last night. Trump took the bait too many times and he was fighting uphill against the moderators. Harris had memorized a lot of pre-scripted lines and got zero pushback from the moderators. I think it will help her marginally.
On the other hand, she was starting to slip before this debate. The glowing coverage of her campaign was starting to fade a bit. Maybe this debate will delay that swing back to earth but I still think it's still coming. She'll struggle and fail if the media ever gets her away from the scripted answers.
But will Harris give an interview this month or will she coast on the debate and the unnamed advisors giving statements to the press on her behalf? I'm guessing the latter. You can't make mistakes if you never give any unscripted answers.
