Tipsheet

Team Trump: So, Our Internal Polling Moved After This Week's Debate...

Guy Benson
Guy Benson  |  September 13, 2024 12:01 PM

Tuesday's debate was, at best, a massive squandered opportunity for Donald Trump, in my view.  At worst, he harmed his standing with a subpar, unfocused, under-prepared debate performance.  But in my analyses of that exchange, I've also highlighted some positive glimmers for the Trump campaign coming out of the debate.  A CNN snap poll, for instance, showed that viewers decisively thought Kamala Harris had won the debate, but those same viewers moved more toward Donald Trump on the economy, the campaign's top issue.  We also noted a Reuters acknowledgment that of the ten undecided voters they were following, six of them moved to Trump after the debate, as opposed to just three for Harris (with one still undecided).  

Then there was this interesting tracker of how voters were responding to the debate in real time.  As you can see, the dials from independents (yellow line) tended to correspond with Republicans' red line as they watched -- diverging sharply from Democrat-aligned viewers' blue line:


Perhaps, despite seeing Harris as the winner of the debate, voters just weren't buying what she's trying to sell. And perhaps they also noticed her refusal to answer direct questions on multiple subjects.  Or perhaps they've just internalized the state of the economy, the country, and the world during the Biden-Harris administration.  Regardless, the Trump campaign has released a memo spelling out how their internal battleground polling (across Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) ticked slightly up after Tuesday's forum:


As I note in this tweet, one should always harbor a least a little bit of healthy skepticism over campaign-released internal polling -- especially as they're trying to beat back or establish a narrative.  It's also awfully soon for them to have turned that around.  We'll see what other polling shows in the coming days.  Meanwhile, one of the smartest elections analysts in the business, Sean Trende of RealClearPolitics, thinks the debate is unlikely to move the needle very much because it was so heavily focused on Trump:

From a debater’s standpoint, it wasn't close. Trump was defensive, erratic, and made claims that either confused facts or were simply at odds with them. Harris, on the other hand, was confident and prosecuted the case against Trump with precision. But did Harris really accomplish what she needed? This is where the conventional wisdom may be veering off course. There’s a difference between what a candidate or a group wants and what it needs. What Harris and her supporters seemingly wanted was a technically adept evisceration of Trump. This echoes the desires of the highly educated moderate-to-liberal class of voters – which includes a lot of journalists – that most desperately wants Trump to be defeated.  Harris delivered for them in spades. It’s no surprise that this class is ecstatic. But what did she need? The pre-debate polls were close and had moved against her in recent days. Frankly, to have received the adulatory media she received over the six weeks after Biden dropped out and yet only be up a point or two in national polling isn’t a great sign. In short, she needed to either convince undecided voters to break her way or to win over some soft Trump supporters.

Did anything transpire on the debate stage that might have assisted this? We might start by asking ourselves: What did anyone, undecided or otherwise, learn about Trump last night? ...In short: Effectively pantsing Trump may have been cathartic, but it probably didn’t move the ball. The man has been running around on the national stage in his skivvies for nine years now. What about Harris? This is where I believe the debate may have been a missed opportunity for her...Even people who have followed the campaign closely know only a few things about her from a policy perspective: She’s pro-choice, she’s a former prosecutor, she once held a raft of policy positions that were pretty far to the left but that she may-or-may-not still hold, and she isn’t Donald Trump. Her debate strategy leaned heavily into the former aspect, but as described above, “not Donald Trump” as a strategy has its limits. Vibes can only get you so far. She probably needed to use the debate to better introduce herself to the American people, to flesh out her policy stances, and to reassure people that the changes of heart she has had on issues are sincere...The debate wound up being mostly about Trump, and Trump’s a known quantity. Telling us more about Donald Trump that we already know probably won’t change the trajectory of the race.

Interesting, plausible, and somewhat counter-intuitive. Of course, the whiffed opportunity for Trump was largely failing to effectively communicate information about Harris, her record, and her positions in front of 67 million viewers to help negatively define her. There's a strong and clear case to be made, and he mostly didn't make it.  If it's true that the debate didn't hurt Trump, or somehow actually slightly helped him, imagine what serious preparation and a game plan could have done for him.  I'll leave you with a few updates on several major themes of the debate:

Recommended

Matt Gaetz Withdraws Attorney General Nomination Matt Vespa
Why Again Do We Still Have a Special Relationship With the Tyrannical UK? Kurt Schlichter


And one more on this subject: