Last Tuesday, I was one of 67 million people who watched the presidential debate between Former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris.
I don’t know about you, but I was left disappointed. Why? Because I didn’t learn a darn thing. Instead, the aftermath of the debate is the antithesis of educational.
Let’s go back. First of all, even though 67 million people watched — representing about 42 percent of the number of total voters in the 2020 presidential election — the overwhelming majority have already made up their minds.
According to a poll by the Center for Opinion Research at Franklin & Marshall, in the swing state of Pennsylvania, only 3% of voters remain undecided. If there is the same turnout as four years ago, that amounts to 4.74 million voters. Of course, where these voters live is important, but by and large, this election will likely not be won or lost on a debate stage.
Having put on two local debates this summer for sheriff and northern commissioner, and seen my publisher colleagues do the same for races in their counties, my goal was to inform voters as best as possible.
Watching the presidential debate last week, I felt like not many questions really delved into policy the way I hoped. Instead, many of the questions were pointedly targeted — then left unanswered.
Looking at the questions for what they were, there’s not much arguing that most of the pointed questions were directed at Trump. Instead of hearing him being asked to defend things he’s said in the past, I want to hear him talk about what he actually intends to do.
Immigration was consistently brought up throughout the debate, but most of the conversation surrounding the topic was placing blame. It’s common knowledge at this point he wants to deport the 15-20 million illegal immigrants, but we didn’t scratch the surface of how that would impact the nation.
What will it cost? How will we ensure these people — they are still people after all — will be treated humanely? Is there a potential damage to the workforce?
Instead of diving into the depths of the topic, we were served a debunked claim of immigrants stealing and eating people’s pets in Springfield, Ohio.
Harris equally dodged questions, especially the most pointed one at her about her policy flip-flops specifically relating to fracking. She seemed to spend as much time trying to bait Trump as she did answering questions.
Many viewers afterward expressed how unfair they thought the moderators were to Trump, pointing to the line of questioning and the real-time fact checks. Whether it was their intent or not, the questions critical of Trump gave him something a candidate would rather have in a debate — time.
Trump spoke for 42 minutes and 52 seconds compared to Harris’ 37 minutes and 36 seconds. Over the course of 90 minutes, about 10 of which neither spoke, that 5 minutes and 16 seconds has greater value than Trump having to defend himself.
Trump was also awarded rebuttal after rebuttal after rebuttal, which is probably why the time on mic was so disparate. Given the circumstances, it was a solid tactic.
Ultimately, if you watched last week’s debate for entertainment purposes, your wish was granted. If you learned anything of consequence — especially something that would unequivocally determine your vote — I would be shocked.
I do not expect there to be another debate, and I’m not sure I’d even want to watch one. Our country has been exponentially politically divided in the last 10-plus years, and nothing about last week’s exercise gives me hope that will change any time soon.
While I was watching, I kept finding myself thinking back to the 2012 debates between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, which had roughly the same viewership. At times, they were highly critical of one another’s policy and plans, but there was an air of respect on that stage. They generally focused on their plans and platform, rather than attacking their opponent personally.
Those debates truly made you think, made you weigh options and policies and made you come to the best decision regarding your vote.
Last week’s debate was shrouded in a fog of disdain and did nothing of the sort.
It begs the question, if the majority of a debate is nothing but blame and fault-finding, what’s the point?
Kyle Troutman has served as editor of the Cassville Democrat since 2014 and owner/publisher since 2023. He was named William E. James/Missouri Outstanding Young Journalist for daily newspapers in 2017, and he is a two-time ISWNE Golden Dozen award winner. He may be reached at 417-847 2610 or ktroutman@cassville- democrat.com.
PUBLISHER’S NOTE: Do you have an opinion about this opinion? Share it with us and the community in a letter to the editor! Letters may be submitted using this link: https://forms.gle/RmdQfYe86PtkTKp8A.
