The impact of the “What the f—?” moments in the Trump/Harris debate

All of us who watched the ABC News presidential debate this week shared an experience: a whole bunch of “What the fuck?” moments. These were statements made by the candidates that seemed, not just odd, but completely incendiary, implausible, and out of left field. So let’s evaluate what they said and just as important, was it effective?

The “What the fuck?” moments in the debate

Trump had several. These are taken directly from the debate transcript.

“In Springfield [Ohio], they’re eating the dogs. The [migrants] that came in. They’re eating the cats. They’re eating — they’re eating the pets of the people that live there.”

“The plan is, as you know, the vote is, they have abortion in the ninth month. They even have, and you can look at the governor of West Virginia, the previous governor of West Virginia, not the current governor, who’s doing an excellent job, but the governor before. He said the baby will be born and we will decide what to do with the baby. In other words, we’ll execute the baby.”

“[Kamala Harris] wants to do transgender operations on illegal aliens that are in prison.” 

Harris said fewer things that seemed completely implausible, but here’s one:

“My opponent has a plan that I call the Trump sales tax, which would be a 20% tax on everyday goods that you rely on to get through the month.”

None of these statements are true. But they are, as you might say, “inspired” by actual incidents and facts. A woman in Canton, Ohio (not Springfield) who was not a migrant did get arrested for abducting and eating a cat. Executing babies after they are born is illegal everywhere in America, but the former governor of Virginia (not West Virginia) did discuss third-trimester abortions for severe fetal abnormalities in the context of a bill that was being debated in his state. And Harris did check a box in a 2019 questionnaire indicating she supported medical care for detainees, which includes transgender care, but is certainly not advocating for it.

As for Harris’s statement, it’s true that Donald Trump wants to impose a 10% to 20% tariff on all imported goods and a 60% tariff on goods from China, which economists estimate would increase the cost of goods for a typical family by $1,700 per year when the cost is passed along to the consumer. But that’s not a sales tax.

Will these outlandish statements be effective?

The target audience for the debate — and these statements — must begin with undecided voters. Even low-information voters who haven’t been paying much attention are well aware of Trump’s positions and persona from his 12 years in the presidential spotlight, across three campaigns and one administration. They may be less aware of Kamala Harris, who’s only really been the center of attention for the presidency for about a month.

Inflation, abortion, and immigration are real issues and undecided voters certainly want to know what these presidential candidates are going to do about them. But their implausible statements are more likely to reflect poorly on the judgment of the candidate making them than to change anyone’s mind.

Fantasies about petnapping, transgender migrants, and imaginary baby executions may be good grist for rallies, but I don’t think anybody is going to decide the election based on them — although they may decide what they think about Donald Trump.

Kamala Harris also did herself a disservice by mischaracterizing Trump’s economic policy. A tariff is not a sales tax, and she made herself look dishonest by saying that so early in a debate that functioned in many ways as her introduction to the electorate. Later in the debate she cited statistics about Goldman Sachs’ estimation of the effect of Trump’s proposed tariffs on the economy, which was a lot more plausible.

There’s still time left in this election season. Economics — and perceptions of how the candidates will handle it — will most likely determine who wins. That is, unless one of the candidates continues to prove to the undecided voters just how loony and implausible they are with constant stream of “What the f—” moments.