Trouncing Trump

The Harris Trump debate and flipping the optical script.

The Mug

Pertinent to ageing and life, Eleanor Roosevelt once said: “Probably the happiest period in life most frequently is in middle age, when the eager passions of youth are cooled, and the infirmities of age not yet begun; as we see that the shadows, which are at morning and evening so large, almost entirely disappear at midday.” So poetically true; caveat being that “middle age” for some, is old age for others. But that is an exposition for another time and place.

Kamala Harris and I are approximately the same age and, given my life experiences, I would hardly call it youth. I have always said to people “it ain’t how new your car is, it’s how many miles it’s been driven.” We’ve all heard about the proverbial “little old lady from Pasadena.” She has a 1960 Edsel (made before I was a mere thought) with 20,000 miles on it, while your 2022 Mustang has already hit 50,000 miles.

I trust you get my point.

The Good News, For Some

Campy vehicular analogies notwithstanding, compared to Donald “Agent Orange” Trump, Kamala Harris resembled the proverbial fountain of youth in last evening’s debate. Even a mediocre litigator, which she is, knows that the death knell in a trial is unpreparedness and she was definitely well prepared. She trounced Trump, but that is a really low bar to clear. Every one of you reading this “piece of work” could trounce Trump and I have supreme confidence in that statement.

Trump was totally outclassed before the first words were spoken by Harris’ handshake alone. He was caught flatfooted in that moment and he stayed on the ropes the duration of the bout. And it wasn’t the rope-a-dope, Trump is not that smart. For those lacking a frame of reference one of my heroes, Muhammad Ali, invented the rope-a-dope. Rope-a-Dope

In litigation there are two types of trials: a bench trial, and a jury trial. Each has its inherent advantages and disadvantages. A bench trial is when the presiding judge decides the case, whereas a jury trial is decided by 12 jurors. Last evening’s debate format was akin to a bench trial given the two moderators and no audience which was a distinct disadvantage for Trump. An audience would have been akin to a jury and Trump both is fed and energized by an audience. Ergo, he came into the front door walking out of the back door.

During the entire debate Trump was unable, or unwilling, to look at his opponent. In one of what I thought was one of the more macabre aspects of the debate, he was less animated in his gesticulations and “accordion hands” than usual whilst maintaining the very facial grimace that was his infamous mugshot. Disturbingly fascinating, it was.

Harris looked like something new, Trump looked like something old; the same juxtaposition he had when onstage with Joe Biden. Those were the optics. However, I am unimpressed by either and see them both, optics notwithstanding, as variations of the same old detritus in terms of downrange political reality. In connection with overall domestic and, most importantly, foreign policy with the exception of Ukraine, (specifically NATO which I call the Nothing but Anglo Terrorist Organization) neither of them represents anything other than an alternative form of a monolithic political theme.

That’s just my unimportant, insignificant, totally subjective and paltry opinion.

The Bad News, For Others

I cannot know what the Harris campaign’s goal was in the debate. Of course, I can make assumptions and it is my assumption that they wanted her to “look presidential.” And as tempting as the rabbit-hole is relative to WTF “looking presidential” means, I will, with considerable angst, avoid the carrot. Here in California we are familiar with Ms. Harris, but the other 49 states are not overall. Therefore, I assume that one of the campaigns goals, aside from “looking presidential” (what a sickening phrase) was to solidify the base of Democrats that were squeamish or unfamiliar with her. Which, in all fairness, may be the sororal twin of “looking presidential.” IF that was the goal, it is my opinion that she achieved it…in spades.

The devil made me do it.

My irreverent sardonicism notwithstanding, Harris may have pulled away some so-called “undecided voters.” A term that I find incredulous. Anyone that is going to go through the Mephisto motions of voting (and only for the third time in my life will I be one of them, for my own reasons) that is still undecided is utterly, and helplessly, confused. Nonetheless, if either candidate pulled away any stragglers it was Harris, for Trump took a dump; all over himself.

The really bad news, for some, is that the debate did not move the needle overall. None of Trump’s supporters and constituents are going to abandon him resultant of the debate. Not a one.

Though Harris may have appeared as something, by comparison to her opponent, fresh and new; though she may have clearly “won” the debate, none of it means she will defeat Trump who has captured the majority of the “white vote” for the past three presidential election cycles. None of it, because winning a debate is not winning an election. And don’t you think there aren’t surprises ahead.

David Mamet once said “Old age and treachery will always beat youth.”