Whine & Dine

Trump vs. Harris: Who Really Won the Debate Showdown?

• Miguel G. • Season 2 • Episode 4

Share episode

Can going full throttle in a debate actually backfire? In this episode of Whine & Dine, I’m unpacking the fiery showdown between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. Trump’s no stranger to dominating the stage, but I’ll explore how his aggressive style might have overshadowed his own biggest achievements—like his economic and foreign policy wins.

On the flip side, Kamala Harris kept her cool, using that prosecutor’s edge to stay sharp under pressure. I’ll also take a look back at Ronald Reagan’s famous debate comeback and ask whether Trump might need a similar moment. Join me as I break down how their contrasting styles could influence public opinion and shift the election outcome.

Support the show

https://linktr.ee/https://linktr.ee/Whineanddineshow

Speaker 1:

Hello everyone, welcome back to Wine and Dine. I'm your host, miguel, and I've been on a long hiatus, I know, but I'm glad to be back. So today we're diving into a topic that's both fascinating and controversial. So, in my view, and we're going to look at Donald Trump's debate with Kamala Harris and we're going to explore how, despite having several opportunities to really shine, trump's ego and personality ultimately got in his way. This wasn't just a case of poor debating, so it was a lesson in how your own strengths and they can sometimes be your greatest weaknesses if you're not careful, and I think that's what happened with Trump. I'm not a Trump supporter, I'm not from the United States, but obviously I think America has influence in the world, and if America suffers, the world suffers. But yeah, so Trump, as we all know, he has a unique approach to debate, so he commands attention, he does dominate the stage and he doesn't shy away from confrontation, but was that enough to win against Kamala Harris? I don't. Well, we'll get to that. So I'm going to be breaking down key moments from the debate, I'm going to analyze what things went wrong and I'm going to discuss what Trump could have done differently. So, yeah, whatever you're doing. Just sit tight, because this is going to be an exciting one.

Speaker 1:

I must say that, whether or not you love Trump, there's no denying that his personality plays a huge role in how we perceive him, how people perceive him. We all have our opinions about him, but yeah, so in this debate, that larger-than-life persona may have cost him the win. So let's just have a look into that, let's just dive into that. So I must start with the strengths that he, donald Trump, brought into this debate. And now, regardless of what you think of him personally, one thing that's for sure he does know how to control the conversation. I mean, we saw it in 2016. Of him personally, one thing that's for sure he does know how to control the conversation. I mean, we saw it in 2016.

Speaker 1:

He does have a natural ability to command attention, whether you like it or not, and to get people talking, people like you and I. And in a debate setting, I think, especially when you're up against someone like Kamala Harris, who, in my opinion, is very skilled, that's a valuable skill, to be honest, to be up against someone like her. So I think Trump had loads of opportunities he had several to just capitalize on his record. So things like the economy. He could have just touched that on its own and I think he would have won the debate. He could have also mentioned the foreign policy wins and his outsider status in Washington.

Speaker 1:

So he's the one who shook up the establishment again back in 2016. So I think these were all areas where he could have just really pressed Kamala Harris and put her on a defensive. So, in fact, one of Trump's biggest strengths is his ability to basically just simplify complex issues and make them understandable to the average voter. But here's the thing, though those chances, those opportunities were there for the taking, but his approach just overshadowed his message. So let me just take you to a few moments in the debate where Trump had a chance to really score bigly, as he says.

Speaker 2:

When it comes to the economy, do you believe Americans are better off than they were four years ago?

Speaker 3:

So I was raised as a middle class kid and I am actually the only person on this stage who has a plan that is about lifting up the middle class and working people of America. I believe in the ambition, the aspirations, the dreams of the American people.

Speaker 1:

Okay. So what does that even mean? See, this was a chance where Trump had to just turn it around or just like to dominate the conversation, as he's well known to do. I understand that people say that he lies all the time, but either way, politics is rough Politics. They're all animals. It's like they're in a boxing ring. So, no matter what lies, he tells it's how you deliver. It's how you deliver the message, and he didn't. He did mention the issue of the economy, but instead of staying on the message and hitting hard with facts, he just shifted the focus back to personal attacks.

Speaker 1:

This was just a moment where Trump could have just showcased his achievements, but instead it became a distraction, and I do think that his strong points have always been his ability to dominate the room, but in this debate with Kamala Harris, that does need to be tempered with focus and a lot of precision, and that's where things started to go off the rails, down the shitter, honestly, all right. So let's talk about Kamala Harris for a minute. I think there's no denying that she's very skilled. She's a skilled debater too. I mean, she was a prosecutor. I think she's good with her words. She's a she's great, and she does have this way of being both calm and sharp at the same time, and she knows how to deliver it, and she just does, and the way she was pointing at that debate to me, I think the visual plays a lot in a debate. It's what we see, not just what we hear, and she didn't necessarily overpower Trump, but she knew how to hold it her own. And, more importantly, she knew how to stay composed, though, and even when things got heated or whatever lies Trump disputes. And, by the way, so I'm not a Trumper, I'm not a Trump supporter. I know it might sound like it, but I think, whether you like Kamala Harris or Donald Trump, it's how you deliver and how you really dominate the debate. I think that's ultimately what gets you the election, what gets you the presidency.

Speaker 1:

And I also want to point out, dominating the debate does not mean interrupting or talking over anyone at any point. For example, one of the key moments where Kamala Harris' style just basically dominate or shone through was when Trump tried to interrupt her. So, rather than getting flustered or even retaliating against Trump, she just maintained her composure and she just let Trump finish doing his dirty work his dirty work, which worked against him. So in debates. I think sometimes less is more. For example, when Trump was debating Biden, I think Trump did a good thing. For example, when Trump was debating Biden, I think Trump did a good thing. I think Trump was way more composed and more reserved than Biden was At some point. Biden was just babbling unfortunately, duties, in my opinion, senile ways Trump just let him speak and I think Trump did more. Sometimes less is more and I think Trump did more just listening to Biden and coming back with zingers.

Speaker 4:

And I'm going to continue to move until we get the total ban on the total initiative relative to what we're going to do with more border patrol and more asylum officers. President Trump, I really don't know what he said at the end of that sentence. I don't think he knows what he said either.

Speaker 1:

But I think OK. So I think this is what happened now with Kamala Harris. I think she was way more composed than Trump was. Even when Trump was debating against Biden, kamala Harris did the right thing at the right time. I mean, let's face it, she acted like, and she seemed like, the more in control candidate. But here's the thing, though Harris wasn't unbeatable, though there were moments where Trump just could have turned the tide, for instance, when she talked about. So she was asked. Okay, so she was asked do you think we're better off now than we were four years ago? And she had no answer. She didn't answer the question. And that's the thing with what Kamala Harris did.

Speaker 1:

I think what happened in this election, in this debate sorry, it wasn't even about Harris winning, it was about Trump losing it. I think that's what it was. So she had no answer to a few things, that being one example, the other one being the abortion question that they asked. I believe One of the moderators asked are there any restrictions at all that you would support an abortion? She didn't say anything. She didn't answer the question directly.

Speaker 3:

Vice President Harris, I want to give you your time to respond, but I do want to ask would you support any restrictions on a woman's right to an abortion? I absolutely support reinstating the protections of Roe v Wade.

Speaker 1:

The only question was if she supported the Afghanistan withdrawal. She couldn't answer the question directly.

Speaker 3:

Well, I will tell you, I agreed with President Biden's decision to pull out of Afghanistan. Four presidents said they would would and Joe Biden did and, as a result, america's taxpayers are not paying the 300 million dollars a day we were paying for that endless war.

Speaker 1:

That's good, I agree with that. That's amazing. But that wasn't the question. The question was cutting and running. It wasn't leaving Afghanistanistan. We all wanted to leave afghanistan, but yeah.

Speaker 1:

So I think some voters they don't care about whatever what I've just said. So some voters vote on based on emotion, so they vote based on character. I think, when it comes to character, trump should never have been president. I think when we talk about his policies, we talk about his policies, but when it comes to character, I mean, a goat can do a better job than Trump, in my opinion. I'm just like calling a spade a spade, but anyway. So I think Trump, instead of addressing the point that I've just made about Kamala Harris not answering the question directly, he just made it about himself, as usual. His ego is just beyond, in my opinion, so he just veered off into more personal attacks and generalizations. Kamala Harris was not immune to criticism, sorry, and there were openings where Trump could have just pressed her harder, but I think the opportunity slipped away because, rather than focusing on policy, trump just seemed more interested in dominating the stage, and I think that that was, and it's probably going to be, its downfall.

Speaker 1:

We don't know the results of the election just yet, but I think I don't think he's going to win, to be honest, but I don't know. I don't know he's going to win, to be honest, but I don't know, I don't know. It's just a guess. But really, let's just talk about his personality though, because love it or love him or hate him, his ego has always been a major part in of his persona, of his public persona at least, and for a long time I think that worked in his. I think I'm going back to 2016, even 2020. Although he lost and, yes, he lost the election in 2020.

Speaker 1:

He's been able to use his confidence and brashness really to win over large parts of the electorate, but I think, in his debate with Harris, that same personality may have just been his undoing. People are bored of him. People don't like him as much anymore. People used to be curious about him. People used to be fascinated by the fact that he went there and he shook up the establishment, and I think he won because people hated Hillary more than they loved him, but anyway. So instead of focusing on winning on the merits, I think it felt like Trump was more focused on winning the room. I think it was more about overpowering Harris rather than out-debating her, which he really didn't.

Speaker 4:

What they have done to our country by allowing these millions and millions of people to come into our country. And look at what's happening to the towns all over the United States, and a lot of towns don't want to talk. It's not going to be Aurora or Springfield. A lot of towns don't want to talk about it because they're so embarrassed by it. In Springfield, they're eating the dogs, the people that came in. They're eating the cats, they're eating the pets of the people that live there, and this is what's happening in our country and it's a shame. As far as rallies are concerned, as far as the reason they go, is they like what I say? They want to bring our country back okay.

Speaker 1:

So I don't know what he's just said and I don't think he knows either. See what I did there. It works both ways. And this is where his personality just really became his own worst enemy. Instead of just debating to win, it just felt like he was debating to protect his own image. He was just spewing nonsense, and I don't care what Republicans say about these animals that are being eaten, apparently, and don't believe everything you see on x, formerly known as twitter. It's just. In my opinion, it was just bollocks, just bullshit. So, yeah, I think when you're so focused on asserting dominance, you just lose sight of the bigger picture, and that's exactly what happened there.

Speaker 1:

I think he trump had the platform. He just had it. He could have won this debate easily, and I know harris is very skillful, she's very skilled, but it's the way you do it, though it's not what you know, it's not your experience, because hillary was hillary. Clinton was way more experienced than trump ever was. She was a better pilot, but trump just flew that plane. Trump improvised and also people hate hated her more than people hated him at that time, in my opinion anyway. So trump had a platform, but I think his own personality just got in the way of him effectively using it.

Speaker 1:

So yeah, so, which brings me back to where did, where did trump go wrong? And, more importantly, what could have? What could he have done differently? Okay, let's break it down. I think, first and foremost, he needs to focus. He needed to focus on substance rather than style.

Speaker 1:

Again, I'm repeating myself, but I think he had policy wins. I mean, let's just start with inflation. Harris said Trump ignited inflation when he left, which I don't think it's true. So when Trump left, the inflation was at 1.4%. The inflation was at 1.4% and in the first year when Biden and Harris took over, it went over nine. So how do you even explain that? So the moderators, the ABC moderators that moderated the debate, did not ask these questions.

Speaker 1:

So, and I do think that corporate media in America at least well, in America, let's just go with that they breathe, they just like live and breathe ideology. So, and it's just like more overt nowadays than just being covert about it. But yeah, so instead of like facing that debate with facts, trump just turned it and made it about himself. He made it about his ridiculous ego, egotistical points. So you talk about his rallies. People are bored of him. People are bored of his old bullshit that doesn't work for him anymore. He should have known better. He wasn't prepared, he just thought he was going to get there and wing it. Kamala Harris, say what you want to say about her and Biden. She came prepared. She did come prepared. I mean, she's a prosecutor. She needs to know her facts before she prosecutes someone. She did well. She did really well.

Speaker 3:

The president of the United States incited a violent mob to attack our nation's capital, to desecrate our nation's capital. On that day, 140 law enforcement officers were injured and some died. And understand, the former president has been indicted and impeached for exactly that reason. But this is not an isolated situation. Let's remember Charlottesville, where there was a mob of people carrying tiki torches, spewing anti-Semitic hate, and what did the president then at the time say? There were fine people on each side. Let's remember that when it came to the Proud Boys a militia the president said the former president said stand back and stand by. So for everyone watching who remembers what January 6th was, I say we don't have to go back, let's not go back.

Speaker 1:

There was only one good point that Trump had. Not only the only one, but one of the good points that he had, and it's the same one that he had, at least in 2016. I can't remember 2020.

Speaker 4:

So she just started by saying she's going to do this, she's going to do that, she's going to do all these wonderful things. Why hasn't she done it? She's been there for three and a half years. They've had three and a half years to fix the border. They've had three and a half years to create jobs and all the things we talked about. Why hasn't she done it? She should leave right now, go down to that beautiful White House, go to to the capital, get everyone together and do the things you want to do. But you haven't done it and you won't do it because you believe in things that the american people don't believe in. You believe in things like we're not going to frack, we're not going to take fossil fuel, we're not going to do things that are going to make this country strong, whether you like it or not there's one thing that she did say, which was she needs to cease fire.

Speaker 1:

I'm not an expert on world politics, wars, etc. But I'm also going to act on emotion. I think, um, I think israel should cease fire now, and I think kamala harris is promising now. I don't know why she hasn't done it yet. I know she was not the president, but she was the next best thing. It sounds to me that she's promising a lot. I don't know how easy it's going to be to persuade Israel to cease fire, but anyway. So she's promising that and I'm happy with that. At least she's telling us that's what she wants. I don't know if it's true or not. She's telling us that's what she wants. I don't know if it's true or not. And this goes with the same argument that people claim, which is they don't know her. I don't want to be a Mariah Carey, but they don't know her, and we'll see, whereas we know Trump, we know where Trump stands in Israel versus Hamas or Palestine, but we'll see what happens. So, just going back to Trump, trump's horrible debate, all right.

Speaker 1:

So Ronald Reagan. So Reagan was the US president from 81 till 89. So he was a Republican president president from 81 till 89. So he was a Republican president. He's considered to be a Republican's god, anyway. So yeah, so he was absolutely demolished by Walter Mondale in the first debate of Reagan's re-election. I didn't even know who Mondale was until recently, because of this election and a bit of research.

Speaker 2:

I have not believed that prayer should be introduced into an election or be a part of a political campaign or religion a part of that campaign. As a matter of fact, I think religion became a part of this campaign when Mr Mondale's running mate said I wasn't a good Christian. So it does play a part in my life. I have no hesitancy in saying so and, as I say, I don't believe that I could carry on unless I had a belief in a higher authority and a belief that prayers are answered.

Speaker 1:

There was a panic mode towards Reagan until a second debate happened. So the president was prepared, much more incisive and he beat Mondale. Reagan got elected by a landslide. So I think this is what Trump needed. So, unless Trump has a second debate with Harris, I think his chance to win is very thin.

Speaker 1:

But I don't know, even though in politics anything can happen. So it's a dog's world out there in the world of politics, and whoever wins wins, and I please beg everyone not to be so arrogant enough. The same way, I'm not going to gonna say we, because I wasn't part of it, but people were really arrogant about brexit. People were really arrogant about the us election. I did not want brexit to happen, because I think brexit anyway, so it's a different conversation. But yeah, so people thought it was going to happen one way and it didn't. And I beg people to not fall for the same trick. I don't think they are, I don't think we are, but anyway, yeah. So just don't be arrogant enough to think Harris or Trump got this in the bag, because neither of them does, and it really was not that Trump did not have any facts on his side. He did, but I think his delivery was so overshadowed by his need to dominate this conversation that the facts got lost in the noise.