Think Politically and Act Strategically

Let’s start with the premise that a Presidential Debate cannot really be “won,” or “lost.”? There are no points awarded, nobody gets a trophy, and opinions are as varied as the pundits and surrogates fighting for TV time in the post-debate spin-room.? Case in point, the perceived “winner” of the Biden/Trump go-around thought he had KO’d his opponent, only to end up with a younger and stronger opponent in Round Two.?

So then, how do we judge performance as an exercise in strategic planning for public affairs professionals setting a course for their organization?? Start with each candidate’s goals and think critically about if they were reached.? Vice President Kamala Harris entered the debate still relatively unknown to casual voters.? She needed to build on the momentum that began at the Democratic National Convention and expand her popularity beyond the party faithful.? Former President Trump needed to stay hinged.? He needed to comport himself in a way that conveyed steady, disciplined leadership.? Even more so, he needed link his opponent to the less popular policies of the Biden Administration while painting her shifts as politically convenient flip-flops.??

Viewers witnessed their fair share of standard mudslinging but through that Harris managed to articulate policy proposals that will be hallmarks of her campaign through the final stretch.? She was clear in her defense of abortion rights and issues like IVF and fertilization.? She spoke of tax breaks for small businesses, tax credits for first time home buyers, and she addressed energy independence when challenged about shifts on fracking (an important issue for PA voters hosting the debate).? She restated her role in the passage of the now popular Affordable Care Act, while adroitly highlighting Trump’s futile attempts to dismantle the law and getting under his skin with a mention of his Republican political rival, the late Senator John McCain.? This culminated in what may become bumper sticker material, his frustrated response, “I have concepts of a plan.”?? When challenged about the Biden Administration's flawed exit from Afghanistan, she quickly turned the tables and Trump was somewhat surprisingly left defending his own negotiation skills with the Taliban.?

On the other hand, Trump spent the evening on defense.? He appeared more so as an unpopular incumbent than he did populist hero. He was forced to focus on his own vulnerabilities, often needing more than the allotted time to explain himself.? He was easily baited by what Harris knows to be his sore spots.? Crowd size at his rallies, the Wharton School’s (his alma mater) dismissal of his economic plan, his role in the January 6th attack on the Capitol, Project 2025, and his ongoing criminal trials.? From a policy standpoint he leaned into three things that could have stood out if they did not trail into inarticulate hyperbole.? Stances on immigration and crime morphed into human consumption of pets.? States rights as they pertain to abortion became accusations that Harris’ running mate Gov. Tim Walz ushered in an age of post-birth execution in Minnesota.? Tariffs and trade should have been an opportunity to highlight his ability to lead economic growth, and he did highlight trade policies that set tariffs on American imports, but again, the conversation shifted to how these tariffs can raise the cost of consumer goods, with Harris calling the tariffs a “Trump Sales Tax.”? Three very popular economic proposals offered by the Trump campaign didn’t even make it to the stage, exempting tipped wages and social security payments from personal income taxes and extending the 2017 tax cuts.??

If your aim is to extract policy positions from these two candidates based on the debate and begin to chart the opportunity and threat that would come with either candidate’s election, then there are two things you can do now, without getting too far ahead of yourself.?

First, avoid misinformation.? Don’t go down the rabbit hole and start building a public affairs strategy based on political rhetoric.? Instead, find a partner who can help you navigate the complexities of public discourse.? Smart organizations are monitoring the discourse, tracking trends in misinformation both online and offline, and distilling that information into what truly matters, the facts about where each candidate and their party stand on policies that will impact your goals.???

Second, have a plan, not merely the “concept” of a plan. Rely on experts within your organization and trusted partners to map all possible outcomes.? Not just the presidential election, but the US Congress, statehouses and everywhere policy decisions are made.? As public affairs and policy professionals we do not have the luxury of waiting on the sidelines until electoral outcomes are clear.? It’s our job not to predict, but to plan for prominent issue sets, legislative priorities and regulatory agendas before the wheels are set in motion and it’s too late.?

Harris has taken advantage of her truncated campaign to raise half a billion dollars and ignite her base while accommodating the middle. Trump has likely squandered what has been the longest Presidential campaign in history and we now find ourselves in a statistical dead heat with the focus once again on undecided voters in small group of asymmetric swing states.? The race is still very much a coin toss, and despite the momentum the Harris campaign knows that there is still much work to be done.? After all, while the political class was focused on two candidates in a poorly lit room in Philadelphia, Taylor Swift was crafting an Instagram post endorsing Harris that may have more impact than weeks of debate prep.???

?

?

? ?

?

?

?

?

?

??