If only the 2024 presidential election was a TV series, we could all giddily anticipate the finale of the best drama television has to offer since The Sopranos. Unfortunately, we’re also the shmucks who live in this country, who caused this tragicomedy, and we have to live with the results.

Imagine this was a race between Democrat Mario Cuomo and Republican Newt Gingrich. That will never happen – Cuomo is no longer alive and Gingrich has indubitably retired. But for a moment, let’s pretend: would Cuomo have told Gingrich that “the world is laughing at you”? Would Gingrich call Cuomo “the worst governor in American history”? Would both repeatedly call the other a liar? Certainly not. It would’ve been a civilized race, heated at times, but only because of ideology, not pettiness.

Enter the Trump-Harris debate on September 10. It was disgraceful on many levels.
One hopes that in a debate candidates will help themselves, but these two hurt themselves. It was a race to the bottom.

Beginning with Kamala Harris, she gained a lot of political capital simply by not being Joe Biden. She’s young(ish). She’s a woman of color. She laughs a lot – granted, the other side mocks her cackle, but smiles and laughs gain favor. But Kamala blew her big chance. She was an empty suit. Her attempts at the “I care about YOU” overtures were woefully phony. Few Americans with finely tuned baloney-meters really think she cares about them. She was vapid. She desperately tried to spew platitudes like a high school sophomore semifinalist in the American Political Science Association debate. At times, she posed with her hand on her chin, as if she was going to skewer Trump with some brilliant counterpunch, and then didn’t. The more Trump attacked her, the more she resisted the bait, hoping she’d seem above-the-fray presidential. Instead, she came across as the shallow frontrunner who’s a deer in the headlights without her emotional support pet, running mate Tim Walz.
Then, there’s Trump. To the Democratic National Committee (DNC), he’s just the gift that keeps on giving. His mocking facial expressions, captured on the split-screen all night long, will provide endless fodder tor carefully-tailored out-of-context Democrat commercials. Did Trump’s advisors not remind him of  Al Gore’s incessant sighing in the 2000 debates against George W. Bush? What kind of amateurs are in his corner?

Trump took the bait so many times, particularly when speaking about PHIs (Persons Here Illegally) eating people’s pets in Ohio. I was greatly concerned he’d pull a Danny Thomas – who starred as a high-ranking police officer in a Kojak episode and at one point while making his case held documents in his mouth, like an animal – which would give the “Trump’s losing it too” crowd ample fodder.
On a side note, CNN absolutely trounced ABC in terms of journalistic professionalism. Jake Tapper and Dana Bash – who are a far cry from the truly great journalists of yesteryear – did a splendid job moderating the June 27 debate between Trump and President Biden. Not so much ABC’s David Muir and Lindsey Davis, who in their own subtle yet odiously underhanded way, helped Harris. This wasn’t Trump v. Kamala; it was Kamala, Muir, and Davis vs. Trump. Some will argue that wasn’t the case, but here’s why it really was: although not to the appalling extent that Meet the Press host Kristen Welker does it – so acerbic that it makes us wish the awful but comparatively less so Chuck Todd was still the host – Muir and Davis added their own one-liner rebuttals at the end of at least three Trump points, and didn’t do it once to Kamala. Like boxers who try to “steal rounds” by putting on a showy flurry in the last ten seconds of a round. Difference is, it’s boxers who do that, not referees on a boxer’s behalf.

As for voters, there are tens upon tens of thousands of them who are brainy, sophisticated, possess a strong command of the issues, and can make a connection between policy and consequences. Unfortunately, there are many more, in both parties, who are trained seals dancing to the tune of the particular comfort food feeding trough from which they get their “news.” Each respective trough-feeder insists his/her candidate clearly won, and that the vilified opponent told lies all night. If only they’d admit that their candidate obscenely stretched some truths too.

On a personal note, I earned my PhD in history by writing a dissertation that took over six years to research, about the impact of debates on presidential elections. I have watched footage repeatedly and exhaustively of every single major party presidential debate ever. And it saddens me that this is what we’ve been reduced to in 2024. What gives me hope, though, is that life is like a thermostat. When the temperature becomes too uncomfortable in one direction or the other, someone finally gets up off the couch and changes the setting.

Both Harris and Trump had the opportunity to take the high road in the debate, and neither did. Which, again, leads me to believe that their advisors lack a strong understanding of presidential debate success. I would counsel them to look to Democrats John F. Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama, and Republicans Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, to learn how to convey sunny optimism, not sling mud. All of them won twice – except for Kennedy, who surely would’ve won a second term had he not been assassinated.

In baseball terms, this debate had no home runs. Just feeble bunt singles, some of them stretched out for hits.