WILL DEBATING SKILLS KEY ANOTHER HARRIS WIN?

 

CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, OCTOBER 1, 2024 OR THEREAFTER

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS

        “WILL DEBATING SKILLS KEY ANOTHER HARRIS WIN?”

 

        All through Kamala Harris’ political career, success in debates has keyed her victories in very tight elections. Her tactic of letting opponents beat themselves may have provided winning margins in two of her four major triumphs, including the one that propelled her into major league politics.

 

        That was her 2010 exchange in a so-far unique contest for what is California’s de facto No. 2 elective job, attorney general. It was the only time in state history that the state’s two most prominent district attorneys, the chief prosecutors of San Francisco and Los Angeles counties, have faced off.

 

        Befitting a once-time-only contest, that campaign was exceptionally close, pitting San Francisco Democrat Harris against Republican Steve Cooley of Los Angeles in a race decided by a margin of less than 1 percent, or 74,000 votes out of 9.7 million cast.

 

        There was only one debate in that contest, staged on Oct. 10, 2010 in a mock courtroom at the UC Davis School of Law.

       

        That’s where Harris first showed her ability to calmly let an opponent self-destruct. The significant moment came when a moderator asked Cooley, faced with being paid less as attorney general than he was as district attorney, whether he would use his county pension to make up the salary difference.

 

        Responded Cooley, “I definitely earned whatever pension rights I have, and I will certainly use that to supplement the very low, incredibly low salary that’s paid to the attorney general.” At the time, that official was paid $150,000 per year, while the average household income in California was $54,280.

 

        Harris, meanwhile, stood by silently, much as she merely chuckled over some of the falsehoods ex-President Donald Trump told in their Sept. 10 debate, including his calling her a Marxist and contending that illegal immigrants from Haiti are eating the pets of Americans.

 

        Cooley later conceded he erred in being so frank, but not before the Harris campaign featured his admission in campaign fliers. No one knows for sure, but there’s a strong likelihood his admission cost Cooley enough votes to win an election not decided until the very last day of vote-counting.

 

        Harris performed similarly in her other squeaker election victory, the one she shared with President Biden in narrowly beating Trump and then-Vice President Mike Pence in 2020, an outcome Trump still refuses to concede.

 

The closest he’s come to that was his offhand remark during the Sept. 10 debate, when he said “I’m not President right now.”

 

        In the Pence-Harris encounter, Pence tried to ape Trump’s often-used debating style of interrupting his opponents, who usually have been overwhelmed by Trump’s energy and not protested. But Harris broke in, reminding Pence that “I’m speaking!” Pence stopped talking.

 

        Polls showed that moment gained Harris and Biden significant support among undecided women voters.

 

        Which demonstrates that Harris has a gift for not beating herself while letting her opponents do just that to themselves.

 

        The key question all this raises, in light of many polls indicating a large majority of voters – including many Trump supporters who said their votes would not change – thought Harris won their debate:

 

        Will that debate be a new difference-maker for Harris in what figures to be another ultra-close election?

 

        Another key question: Should Trump agree to a second debate on another television network, as Harris now suggests, in an effort to reverse the apparent outcome of the September encounter? Trump says he won’t, but candidates often change their minds about debating or not.

 

        If he does that, Trump will figure he is capable of restraint when Harris tries to bait him into wandering far off his intended themes, as she did by questioning the Trump campaign’s tally of crowd sizes and reactions at Trump rallies.

 

        He has yet to demonstrate that capability, while Harris has, possibly thanks to her experience in courtroom exchanges that come about as close as real life gets to an election debate.

 

        It’s a key strategic decision for Trump, who has been reluctant to admit there’s anything he cannot do.

       

    -30-

    Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It," is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net.