Since the last presidential debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden ended the latter’s re-election bid, newshounds are emptying Thesauruses in search of maximalist language to describe the import of tonight’s clash between Kamala Harris and Trump. “With no other debates scheduled between Ms. Harris and Mr. Trump,” the New York Times writes, “the face-off figures to be one of the highest-stakes 90 minutes in American politics in generations.”It’s also likely to be one of the most abhorrent, ear-splitting, cliché-ridden, factually unmoored, cringe-inducing live TV spectacles ever. Or the worst, at least, since the last debate. Pre- and post-debate commentary will be critical. The notion that the press heavily influences perception of who “wins” and “loses” debates has been a tired media saw since the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon affair, but audiences are tougher now. They are more likely to see through narrative-shaping efforts.That doesn’t mean post-debate talking points are irrelevant. As we learned the last time, cable stations have become messaging platforms for delivering pronouncements of behind-the-scenes oligarchs. We will know whether Emperor Obama (or Brennan, or whoever is really running the country) gives tonight’s performance a thumbs-up or thumbs-down within minutes of the MSNBC/CNN roundups.As usual, I’ll be viewing the debate with Walter Kirn through the lens of a drinking game. We’ll watch the whole event, plus check in on the after-event commentary, beginning at 8:45 pm ET
The presidential debate went Kamala’s way, writes Eli Lake. But the race is far from over.
