Gordon L. Weil
The debate revealed a split between the presidential
candidates going beyond their differences on the issues.
At several points, Kamala Harris directly addressed viewers,
reaching beyond the limits of the ABC debate set. Donald Trump, expected to be on offense but
finding himself mostly on defense, never left the limits of the debate.
After the war of words, Trump told the media, “It was the
best debate I’ve ever had.” That may be
a case of wishful thinking or an attempt at campaign spin. But that statement
amounted to his giving himself a grade on his performance. He was telling the voters that this was him
at his best.
The presidential election is held in each state for its
electoral votes. Trump played to his
core backers in the belief that he had locked up safe states and could raise
doubts about Harris in the swing states.
Of course, Harris has her own safe states, but she was reaching for
voters in both swing states and on Trump’s own turf.
It’s all about electoral math. Just below the surface of the
presidential election lies a politically deadly force that could pick the
winner despite the will of the people.
This forecast is not merely a possibility; it is a
certainty. When the votes are
counted on and after November 5, the outmoded Electoral College will determine
the winner, no matter the popular vote.
The practical effect of the Electoral College is that the
Democratic candidate for president must win by much more than a slim majority in
the national popular vote. If Harris leads by one or two percent in the
polls, that’s probably not enough. She needs more than a national
squeaker to be assured of enough support across enough states to prevail.
The reverse is true for the Republican candidate. They
may win less than a majority of the vote nationally, but still be
elected. This seems to be an iron law: every time since 1824 when there
has been a minority winner, the victor was a Republican. Trump can win
with less than a popular majority, as he did in 2016.
While a narrow national margin either way may mean a Trump victory,
Harris can win by carrying swing states, and she can win big by taking one or
two safe Trump states. If she trails in swing states, even while winning the
national popular majority, Trump’s electoral vote could overrule her majority.
So, Harris had to accept the electoral math and tried to
turn the debate to her national advantage.
For her, it was not so much a debate as a way to talk directly with
swing voters all across the country. For
Trump, it was a matter of reinforcing his hold on his MAGA core and raising
doubts about Harris with other Republicans and possibly with independents.
She stuck to her case and often avoided answering some
moderators’ questions. She needled him. He
boldly asserted untruths, knowing there was not enough time to refute them all. He was so intent on his false claims, some of
them wild, that he failed to successfully link her to President Biden.
Whatever the points the candidates thought they scored in
the debate format, Harris sought to use it as her only national campaign
stop. In what was clearly the best
answer given by either candidate, she forcefully laid out the case for
reproductive freedom for women. This was
an attempt to reach voters in all states. If successful, she could overcome the
electoral math.
The effect of the Electoral College can only be defeated in
one way – turnout. Motivated voters
showing up to vote can undermine the implicit assumptions about the way states
will decide.
When voter turnout is unexpectedly high, it can upset what
polling forecasts. A surge in support
for a candidate might overturn the expected outcome, flipping the electoral
math. This might occur in both the swing
states and in supposedly safe states.
Momentum can make swings happen anywhere.
The debate was Harris’s chance to recover her momentum and
Trump’s chance to block it. If she
rekindled enthusiasm for her candidacy, the debate could have helped her in
swing states, but also to reach into Trump’s supposedly safe states. It seems less likely that Trump could have
loosened her hold on her safe states.
If one party invades the other party’s safe states, then a voter
anywhere can make a difference. That’s possible this year,
because Trump may have peaked, leaving Harris nowhere to go but up.
Growing enthusiasm helps boost momentum. Watch the
number of small contributions; they reflect that enthusiasm. Also, the
surge in voter registration may be a positive sign for either candidate.
Will there be another debate? It could help either candidate, but in hugely
different ways.
