Undecided voters try to decide!

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2024

Plus, the latest cognitive shortfall: What did the nation's Undecideds think about last night's debate?

Frankly, it's hard to decide! According to this report, the Washington Post assembled a panel of 25 "uncommitted, swing-state voters," then asked them "in real time about their reactions to Tuesday’s debate."

According to the Post's report, twenty-three said that Harris "performed better" last night; two said the same thing about Trump. By the end of the evening, fifteen were definitely or probably voting for Candidate Harris. According to the Post's report, Candidate Trump had the support of six.

That's what occurred in the realm of the Post. Over at the New York Times, Undecideds seemed to remain vastly more pre-decided:

Pundits Said Harris Won the Debate. Undecided Voters Weren’t So Sure.

For weeks, undecided voters have been asking for more substance.

So it was perhaps no accident that Vice President Kamala Harris’s first words during the presidential debate on Tuesday were, “I am actually the only person on this stage who has a plan.”

Some Americans might need more convincing.

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.”

The couple ended the night wondering how the costly programs each candidate supported—Mr. Trump’s tariffs and Ms. Harris’s aid to young families and small businesses—would help a couple like them, living on a fixed income that has not kept pace with inflation. They said they didn’t hear detailed answers on immigration or foreign policy, either.

Fairly often, Undecideds are inclined to find it all disappointing. In this case, Candidate Harris's late entry into the race may tend to make this year's contest especially hard to parse. In our view, that suggests, among other things, the desirability of saddling the hopefuls up for another debate.

Meanwhile, the all-knowing Kathleen Kingsbury is the all-knowing "Opinion editor of The New York Times, overseeing the editorial board and the Opinion section." She focused on what Harris failed to do, tended to brush past Trump's corresponding failures:

The Question Kamala Harris Couldn’t Answer

[...]

Over the weekend, a survey by The New York Times and Siena College found that 60 percent of likely voters said they believed America was headed in the wrong direction, and many reported that they didn’t know enough about where Harris stands on several key issues. Any poll is just a snapshot in time, and it is admittedly hard to interpret exactly what those respondents are looking for from her. Do they want a better understanding of how she plans to govern from the Oval Office in terms of policy? Or are they more interested in her character and what type of leader she would be?

For those voters looking for answers on policy, the debate is unlikely to have left them feeling better informed. According to the Times tracker, the vice president spent nearly half of her speaking time attacking Trump. She rightfully called out his lies and his dangerous embrace of dictators. She was also strong in defending reproductive rights, as well as President Biden’s record on foreign and domestic policy. And she mentioned a handful of plans she’d pursue if she won the White House.

Yet we learned very few new details about those plans. On the economy, which voters often rank as the issue of most importance to them, she only scratched the surface in discussing how she’d enact tax cuts, build more affordable housing and help parents of young children. On foreign policy, she committed herself to a two-state solution in the Middle East and to supporting Ukraine in victory over Russia, but she didn’t expand on how she’d seek to achieve either goal. She pledged not to ban fracking but said little on how she would plan to invest in climate solutions. She also continued to dodge questions about why she recently distanced herself from positions that she took in her quest to be the Democratic nominee in 2020.

Most important, she did very little to distinguish her plans from Biden’s in an election in which the electorate seems hungry for change.

Bad Harris! Bad Harris—no!

It isn't that any of this is "wrong"—and Harris did avoid giving direct answers to several direct questions. That said, does anyone have the slightest idea how Candidate Trump is going to accomplish the various goals he laid out as he meandered through last evening's event?

For example, does anyone know how Candidate Trump plans to accomplish the world-saving miracle described in the passage below? On the stump, he makes this promise all the time. But is he even describing behavior which would be legal?

TRUMP (9/10/24): ...She hates Israel. At the same time, in her own way, she hates the Arab population because the whole place is going to get blown up, Arabs, Jewish people, Israel. Israel will be gone. It would have never happened. Iran was broke under Donald Trump. Now Iran has $300 billion because they took off all the sanctions that I had. Iran had no money for Hamas or Hezbollah or any of the 28 different spheres of terror. And they are spheres of terror. Horrible terror. They had no money. It was a big story, and you know it. You covered it. Very well, actually. They had no money for terror. They were broke. Now they're a rich nation. And now what they're doing is spreading that money around. Look at what's happening with the Houthis and Yemen. Look at what's going on in the Middle East. This would have never happened. 

I will get that settled and fast. And I'll get the war with Ukraine and Russia ended. If I'm President-Elect, I'll get it done before even becoming president.

He'll get that settled before taking office? Is he even describing something that's legal? 

We don't know the answer to that question. But what ever happened to the old bromide according to which "we only have no president at a time?"

No one seems to ask. That said, it was interesting to learn about Harris's consistency! Candidate Harris hates Israel, but she hates the Arab population too, though only in her own way.

We can think of a lot of questions which could be directed to each of these candidates. Some Undecideds just never decide, but judged by traditional norms, it would make a lot of sense to have two more debates.

That said, some statements pretty much speak for themselves. From last night's event, we'd probably start with this:

TRUMP: First, let me respond as to the rallies. She said people start leaving. People don't go to her rallies. There's no reason to go. And the people that do go, she's busing them in and paying them to be there. And then showing them in a different light. 

So she can't talk about that. People don't leave my rallies. We have the biggest rallies, the most incredible rallies in the history of politics...

Harris is busing people into her rallies and paying them to be there! At least as a matter of theory, this may be an improvement over Trump's previous claim that no people were actually present at one of Harris's crowded events.

As far back as 2017, something on the order of three dozen medical specialists were willing to say that this particular candidate had a clinical "personality disorder" which creates an element of danger. For better or worse, our high-end journalists have always agreed that we must never report or discuss that apparent possibility.

On balance, we aren't even saying that journalistic decision is wrong. It does say something about the immaturity of our public discourse.

At any rate, this:

First, the rally attendees weren't there. Now the attendees are being bused in and they're being paid for their services.

People like Kingbury normalize this! According to experts, cognitive shortfalls will sometimes pop up in the place where you least expect them.

Remarkably full disclosure: With respect to the possible clinical affliction of the one candidate, we've always counseled empathy / sympathy for anyone so afflicted.

"I pity the poor immigrant," Bob Dylan (metaphorically) said.