Hanaguma

Nice try. If one candidate is BSing, it is the OTHER candidate who should call them out. And if they can't, that is on the other candidate. You said it was "in the rules" that the mods could fact check. It wasn't. Just take the loss and move on. BTW, I never said that Trump did well. I think he blew it frankly, in spite of the circumstances. Harris kept to her points and got under his skin. He missed numerous opportunities to turn things back around. As to whether it will cost him the election, I would say doubtful.

Really? Because HERE are the rules as set out by ABC and I can't see anything like fact checking mentioned... https://abcnews.go.com/US/abc-news-releases-rules-sept-10-debate-harris/story?id=113019909

The "fine people on both sides" hoax was thoroughly debunked by Politifact. Hardly a Trump friendly organization. He was clearly referring to people on both sides of the "take down Confederate statues" dispute. NOT neo nazis or racists. To quote the Donald; And you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists.

Generally that is true. But Biden took great pains to refer to his presidency as the "Biden-Harris Administration". Clearly he had more for her to do than most presidents. Possibly he could recognize that he was starting to slip and delegated more responsibility. Who was it that said she was the last person in the room when Biden made decisions? Who was it that cast deciding votes in the Senate for many rather...controversial... pieces of legislation?

Harris' job to do that during the debate. During an interview, different story. But the moderators should not be injecting themselves into the discussion and engaging with the candidates.

It was 3 on 1, of course, but Trump should have expected it and adjusted his performance accordingly. I think he was a bit overconfident. Harris prepared well and went in with a game plan to disqualify Trump for the office, rather than to lay out her own vision of the presidency. And to a large extent she succeeded. The Donald's ego has always been his Achilles heel. Now, whether it will have a lasting impact is another story. Without having any of her own policies, Harris still trails Trump in voter confidence on key issues like immigration and the economy.

The two questions that people really need answers for were not asked; a/ VP Harris, why haven't you done any of the things you propose in your 3 1/2 years in office? b/ VP Harris, when did you realize that the President is no longer capable of serving a second term, or do you believe that he could have if he hadn't been defenestrated?

Not sure if this will move the needle much. People will come away with a vague impression that Trump is an a-hole (true), but they already knew that. They need to know more about Harris and what she plans to do. So as time passes and she still does not clearly define her message, she will start sinking again in the polls. Interesting take from the CNN post-mortem. Viewers came away thinking Trump was MORE capable of handling the economy than before the debate. His lack of discipline really cost him, but in the long run it won't matter. Plus, now the Democrats have had two debates on friendly networks. Wouldn't it be fair and just if they agree to have the next one on less friendly territory?

Well Tug, actual assault weapons are very difficult to get. The civilian knock-offs just look cool (to certain people) but that is cosmetic. Much like buying a car that LOOKS like an F-1 racer but it has a 4 cylinder engine. They are no different than other widely available weapons. Not to mention that long guns of ALL kinds are responsible for a very small number of total gun deaths in the US. I suspect that Harris secretly shares your wish to jail lawful gun owners though. She is just cloaking it in BS.

Also supported confiscation of 'assault weapons ' during her 2020 presidential run. She disguised it as a 'mandatory buyback ', but that of course is nonsense. The government can't 'buy back 'your guns because they didn't sell them to you in the first place.

That's reasonable. Harris met and exceeded what many expected. She was very well coached and the strategy was obvious from the start- avoid policy discussions and instead put Trump on trial as unfit for office. And he largely took the bait, wasted too much time trying to defend himself. On the few occasions where the moderators tried to steer the debate back towards issues that voters actually care about, Trump did better. But the tone set by the moderators was obvious from the beginning- they wanted to avoid any talk about the economy, immigration etc. Trump's closing statement was very good, but too late.

Not true. ABC and CNN both hosted. CNNs moderators were surprisingly better though.

When did it become the debate moderators job to "fact check" the debaters? That should be left to the other debater. Makes it far too easy for the mods to insert themselves into the action, when they really need to keep out of the spotlight.

No, she won't. She got zero bounce from her convention or "interview " with CNN. This will be no different. Just like 2020, the more she talks, the less people like her.

Exactly. The 'last person in the room ' with Biden for all his disastrous decisions. The tie breaking vote on his worst policies. But oh so separate...

Harris was well coached and stuck to her talking points. Trump let her get under his skin, which was a mistake. Otherwise, the issues that Americans actually care about were ignored. Almost nothing on immigration, inflation, the economy in general. Typical legacy media performance.

I quite enjoyed David Muirs closing statement.

David Muir is debating Trump more than Harris...

More than a passing resemblance to Nick Nolte...

So you would support the bill if it didn't contain the 'vigilante wording '?

AFAIK, most civilized countries require proof of citizenship to vote. Why should the Democratic party's policy be against it?

This is the state of journalism in 2024. Asking for a reaction to a comment made in an interview with no context or relevance. God forbid anyone talk about issues or platforms. I am sure Kamala would be happy to comment on JD's reaction to a comment.... Jesus.

Well, the debate is at the safe confines of ABC news, whose director is a former Clinton staffer and surrounded by friendly faces. But God forbid she talk to someone like Bret Baer or Britt Hume... those radicals... I would say Trump should do Cenk's show, why not? Not exactly the equivalent of appearing on Fox for Her Kamalousness, though. More like Kamala with Matt Walsh.

Why should she do it? Because she wants to be the goddam President, that's why. She has to show that she can handle a little heat. If she can't handle a tough reporter, what chance does she have going up against Xi or Putin? At the moment, she is hiding in plain sight- letting various spokesholes deliver her missives to the press. It is a rather pathetic way to campaign.

Exactly. Which is why the Harris campaign eagerly agreed to debate on the conditions established for the Biden debate. Oh, wait... never mind.