Trump's Job Was: Put Harris on the Spot

Taking their lead from the Whiner-in-Chief, the conservative commentariat has been complaining about leftist bias ever since Trump managed to lose the debate to Kamala Harris.

In one of the less ridiculous pieces, David Harsanyi correctly notes that Kamala Harris neither explained her positions to the American people, nor was pressed into doing so by the moderators:

Harris' campaign contends she no longer supports policies of the Green New Deal. And that's fine. But it would probably be helpful to know what initially led her to back the elimination of fossil fuel energy production, the near-banning of meat and air travel, the retrofitting of "every building in America," and a government-guaranteed job, home and "economic security" for all who are "unable or unwilling" to work.

Indeed, not only it would have been helpful for undecided voters to know the answers to such questions, they would have opened up new lines of attack for her debate opponent or opportunities for him to explain why his proposals (whatever they are) would be preferable.

Instead, Trump lapped up the bait Harris laid out for him, lost his composure, and famously started ranting about immigrants eating dogs.

Granted, one role many partisan pundits take up is to help their champions make cases for themselves or attack the opponents of said champions, but at some point, one begins to wonder: What would it take to cause someone to admit 'our guy/gal' is a weak candidate?

It's been done in the past to great effect, such as when Louisianans rallied around the slogan, Vote for the crook: It's important as they defeated David Duke's gubernatorial bid.

Trump was on that stage, with moderators he claimed later to regard as 'lightweights' and a weak opponent whose position on the last administration should have been easy to turn into a massive liability: Why didn't he ask the questions Harsanyi is asking? Why didn't he -- as Thomas Sowell recently urged -- "[address] the voting public as if they were adults who could understand an issue -- if you explained it to them in plain English"? Why has he failed to do any of these things the whole time?

Conservatives such as Harsanyi have a decision to make in light of such ineptitude: Explain to voters why, despite such obvious shortcomings, we should nevertheless vote for Trump, or cut their losses. The latter might well entail campaigning against Trump and helping non-leftists prepare to thwart the worst parts of her agenda, whatever that turns out to be.

-- CAV