I’m calling an audible and discussing the debate today because the big day is tomorrow. It will air at 9 p.m. ET for 90 minutes from the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia. ABC News anchors David Muir, and Linsey Davis are slated to moderate the debate, which will be broadcast by the network and streamed on many channels. Watch via streaming or conventional television, or find a watch party (scroll to the bottom for the drinking game)!

But before we start, let me introduce you to a new term: sanewashing.

“Sanewashing” refers to the media’s tendency to sanitize or normalize extreme or misleading statements made by politicians, portraying them as part of conventional political discourse. This is particularly evident in coverage of Donald Trump, where outrageous or false claims are often softened or downplayed.

For instance, during an August 2024 Moms for Liberty event, Trump made the baseless claim that schools were secretly performing gender surgeries on children without parental consent—a claim with no basis in reality. Despite the obvious falsehood, media outlets like the New York Times and Washington Post focused more on the political aspects of the event, ignoring or glossing over the outright misinformation.

This practice of focusing on more palatable elements of Trump’s remarks, while disregarding the dangerous or false parts, presents a serious risk. It normalizes extreme statements, allowing them to seep into the mainstream without proper scrutiny, and contributes to public confusion. Critics argue that this kind of sanewashing weakens democratic norms by making voters believe that both sides of the political spectrum are engaging in similar, reasonable discourse, when that is often not the case.

The Origins: Why They Debate

Presidential debates give the public a rare, unscripted glimpse of candidates under pressure. The debates aren’t real in the traditional sense; they don’t involve strict rebuttals or logic games but are designed to showcase how candidates respond when the spotlight is on. The goal is to make candidates appear presidential—or, sometimes, to reveal cracks in their image.

The first-ever presidential debate didn’t even include a president. It was held in 1948 between Republican Thomas Dewey and Democrat Harold Stassen during the primary season. But the modern debates as we know them began with the 1960 showdown between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. It wasn’t just about what they said but how they looked.

Tanned and poised, Kennedy faced a tired Nixon who had just left the hospital. Those who listened to the radio thought Nixon won, but Kennedy was the clear victor on television. This moment convinced us that debates were here to stay because, in the era of television, the image could sway the election.

1980: Reagan’s Famous “There You Go Again”

By 1980, debates had cemented themselves as key events, but none more so than the one between Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter. The smooth-talking former actor Reagan knew how to play the camera and the crowd. Carter, who was dealing with economic crises and a shaky presidency, was the clear underdog.

Reagan used wit to dismantle Carter’s criticisms, dropping the now-famous line, “There you go again,” to disarm an attack on his Medicare policy. The crowd laughed, and Reagan didn’t just win the debate; he won hearts. That moment became a defining moment in his political career. Carter, by contrast, came across as worn out—much like Nixon in 1960. Reagan’s landslide victory was a testament to the power of a perfectly timed line. The Commission on Presidential Debates said over 80 million people watched this debate.

2008: Obama and McCain Clash on the Economy

Fast forward to 2008, and you have a completely different tone. America was in a financial crisis, and the first African American presidential candidate, Barack Obama, was challenging Vietnam veteran John McCain. It wasn’t a debate of quips and comebacks but a tense discussion of how to save the economy from collapse.

Obama’s calm demeanor and ability to explain complex economic policy in simple terms won him the debate. McCain, in contrast, was criticized for seeming erratic at times. Ultimately, Obama’s performance helped solidify his image as the “steady hand” needed to navigate America through financial turmoil. This debate wasn’t remembered for any one-liner but for the palpable tension and high stakes of a country on the brink.

2016: Trump vs. Clinton – “Because You’d Be in Jail”

In 2016, the debates took on a unique tone mainly due to Donald Trump’s approach. With his background in reality TV and unconventional style, Trump injected unpredictability and directness that was rare in previous presidential debates. His method of delivering sharp one-liners, personal jabs, and ignoring traditional debate decorum contributed heavily to the spectacle-like atmosphere.

While Hillary Clinton remained more conventional in her debate style, focusing on policy and fact-based arguments, Trump’s bombastic approach often made the debates more combative and less structured. Both candidates played their roles, but Trump’s aggressive, unorthodox debate tactics drove the shift toward a reality TV-like atmosphere.

2020: Chaos and Interruptions

The 2020 debates were a different kind of spectacle. Trump, now a one-term president, was facing Joe Biden—a veteran of the political scene, and their debates were often chaotic. Trump’s strategy was to bulldoze, interrupt, and overwhelm. Biden struggled to stay calm despite constant interruptions, and the moderators had difficulty maintaining control.

This debate was remembered not for any policy discussion but for sheer chaos. Trump’s interruptions reached a point where the moderators had to change the rules for future debates, adding the infamous “mute button” to prevent candidates from talking over each other. According to Reuters, these debates illustrated how divided the country had become.

How Presidential Debates Differ from Traditional Debates

While we call them “presidential debates,” they’re far from the structured, evidence-driven contests you’d find in a formal debate setting. Presidential debates are more like unscripted performances than rigorous argumentative exercises. Here’s why:

1. Questions and Preparation: In a classic debate, participants are given the questions beforehand, allowing them to prepare their arguments meticulously. They come ready with facts, evidence, and strategic rebuttals to counter their opponent’s claims. Presidential candidates, on the other hand, don’t get the same advantage—they go in mostly blind, responding to questions they haven’t seen before. This shifts the focus from detailed argumentation to quick thinking and improvisation, making it more about how they react under pressure than the depth of their knowledge.
2. Proof and Fact-Checking: In traditional debates, providing evidence is mandatory. Participants are expected to back up their claims with solid, verifiable evidence, and the debate format often includes rebuttals to challenge false or unsupported assertions directly. In contrast, presidential debates don’t require candidates to provide immediate evidence for their claims. They can make sweeping statements without being held to account in real-time, which is why post-debate fact-checking has become so crucial. While a formal debate holds participants to strict standards of truth, presidential debates rely on the media and analysts to dissect the accuracy of the candidates’ claims after the discussion ends.
3. Focus on Style Over Substance: In a formal debate, winning is determined by the strength of one’s arguments and evidence. Presidential debates, however, often prioritize style over substance. How a candidate presents themselves—whether they seem calm, strong, or likable—frequently influences public perception more than the actual content of their responses. Think of the Kennedy-Nixon debate in 1960, where Kennedy’s confident, polished appearance won over television viewers, even though radio listeners thought Nixon had the stronger argument.
4. Limited Rebuttals: Classic debates are built on rebuttals—challenging the opponent’s arguments point-by-point with logic and facts. Presidential debates, however, allow candidates to pivot away from direct rebuttals. Instead of engaging in a back-and-forth about the facts, candidates often focus on delivering talking points or attacking their opponent’s character without necessarily addressing the substance of their opponent’s argument.
5. Real-Time Fact-Checking: In formal debates, unsupported claims can be immediately challenged and dismantled. Presidential debates, by contrast, are more fluid, with candidates often making claims that aren’t verified until after the debate. This can leave viewers with misleading or inaccurate impressions until media fact-checkers analyze the statements afterward.

In summary, while real debates focus on logic, preparation, and proof, presidential debates are more about perception, charisma, and how quickly candidates can respond under pressure. This mixture of performance and policy makes them a unique—and sometimes chaotic—cornerstone of American elections.

What to Expect on Tuesday: Harris vs. Trump

Tuesday night marks the pivotal moment in what has already been an extraordinary election season. Kamala Harris, the first woman of color to stand on a presidential debate stage, faces Donald Trump, the former president whose unorthodox style has already rewritten the rules of political discourse.

As polling shows razor-thin margins in key swing states like Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, with some even showing Harris and Trump tied, the stakes couldn’t be higher. This debate will showcase their differing visions for America and give the electorate one of their final chances to see the candidates face off before November.

A High-Stakes Matchup

The 2024 Harris-Trump debate is no ordinary political event; it’s a clash of two titans, each with their own strengths, vulnerabilities, and strategies. This faceoff, set against razor-thin polling margins, could decide the direction of an election that has already seen wild shifts.

Harris enters the debate facing a slight drop in polling after a euphoric summer. Meanwhile, Trump wants to capitalize on his reputation as a scrappy underdog who thrives in combative settings. Polls show Harris holding slight leads in key battlegrounds like Michigan and Wisconsin, but Trump remains competitive, and he’s tied with Harris in Pennsylvania. Both candidates are under immense pressure to deliver a memorable performance that could swing undecided voters in these crucial states.

However, it’s essential to approach the 2024 polls with some caution. Polling errors in the 2016 and 2020 elections, especially at the state level, have shaken public confidence in their accuracy. According to Pew Research, while improvements have been made to polling methods, particularly in the 2022 midterms, predicting voter turnout remains a significant challenge.

With Donald Trump back on the ballot, past issues like underestimating Republican support or relying on outdated voter models could resurface. Polls may provide useful snapshots, but they shouldn’t be viewed as guarantees of final outcomes, especially in close races where even small errors can make a big difference.

In fact, Pew Research found the margin of sampling error typically cited in polls only accounts for one type of error and may lead to a false sense of precision. Pew highlighted multiple sources of potential error in polls

• noncoverage error (when specific segments of the target population are not represented in the polling sample),
• nonresponse error (when certain groups of people who are selected to participate in a poll choose not to respond or are unavailable), and
• measurement error (when there is a flaw in how a poll collects or interprets data, often due to poorly worded questions, misunderstanding by respondents, or misreporting of opinions),

which are not reflected in the reported margin of error. According to their research, the aggregated mistakes in poll estimates could be twice as large as the reported margin of sampling error in close elections.

The Candidates’ Strategies

Both candidates are expected to play to their strengths, but their strategies couldn’t be more different.

Donald Trump, known for his combative approach, thrives on chaos and unpredictability. His primary goal will likely be to unsettle Kamala Harris, much like he did with Hillary Clinton in 2016, using blunt attacks and throwing his opponent off balance. However, with the introduction of a mute button—put in place after his disruptive 2020 debates with Joe Biden—Trump’s strategy of constant interruptions will be curtailed. This will force him to adapt, as he can no longer dominate the conversation by overpowering his opponent with interruptions.

On the other hand, Kamala Harris will likely focus on remaining calm and policy-driven, avoiding Trump’s attempts to draw her into personal exchanges. Her prosecutorial background gives her a strategic edge in staying on point and focusing on the facts. Harris will aim to project presidential authority and avoid engaging in Trump’s personal and combative style, using her responses to outline clear policies while dodging distractions.

The Candidates’ Styles

Trump’s style is aggressive and overwhelming. He often relies on rapid-fire statements and personal jabs to disrupt his opponents’ rhythm. In the 2016 Republican primaries, he famously labeled Jeb Bush as “low energy” and continuously interrupted him, leaving Bush visibly flustered. Trump’s challenge in this debate will be his limited ability to interrupt, potentially altering his effectiveness in breaking his opponent’s momentum.

Harris’s style, in contrast, is calm and composed. Her debate performance in 2020 against Mike Pence demonstrated her ability to stay focused and measured, even in the face of interruptions. Harris uses precise, deliberate language to present her arguments, and her now-iconic retort, “I’m speaking,” highlights her capacity to remain unfazed. Harris must lean on that composure in this debate to stand apart from Trump’s more combative approach, focusing on clear messaging and presidential demeanor.

What to Watch For

Kamala Harris

• Poise under pressure: Watch Harris maintain her composure, especially when Trump inevitably launches personal attacks. Her calm retort of “I’m speaking” during the 2020 debate could set the tone for how she handles interruptions or dismissive comments.
• Policy pivot: Harris will likely focus on presenting a clear, policy-driven argument, laying out her vision for the country while pivoting away from Trump’s attempts to goad her into a personal clash.
• Breaking the mold: As the first woman of color to debate on a presidential stage, Harris must challenge stereotypes and expectations, especially given Trump’s history of underestimating her.

Donald Trump

• Handling the mute button: Trump thrives in chaotic debate formats, but he must adjust with the new rule of muted microphones. The real question is whether he can stick to his plan or if frustration will get the better of him.
• Personal attacks: Trump is known for his biting personal jabs. Will he continue with this approach, or will the more controlled format push him to focus more on policy?
• Charm offensive: While Trump’s aggressive approach can be off-putting to some, he also has a talent for winning over crowds with his humor and off-the-cuff remarks. Watch for whether he tries to soften his approach to appeal to undecided voters.

Audience Expectations: How We Consume Political Spectacle

For viewers, the Harris-Trump debate is as much about entertainment as it is about policy. Presidential debates have evolved into high-stakes television spectacles where millions scrutinize every line, facial expression, and moment. With over 90 million viewers expected to tune in, this debate could rival the historic match-ups of Reagan-Carter in 1980 and Trump-Clinton in 2016 regarding viewership and impact.

To help us watch for rhetorical tactics that can completely derail a thoughtful discussion, I have created a list to help us keep score!

The Debate Drinking Game! Drink, eat, puff along (make sure you aren’t driving anywhere) and by taking a hit every time you hear one of these techniques being used!

Rhetorical Strategy	Explanation	Example
Gish Gallop	Changing what someone said to make it sound worse or wrong so it’s easier to argue against.	A person lists ten false claims in a row, knowing their opponent won’t have time to correct each one.
Straw Man Fallacy	Instead of discussing the issue, someone says, “You can’t trust him—he’s a liar.”	Someone says, “You just want to ban all cars,” when the person only suggested limiting pollution from cars.
Ad Hominem Attacks	Attacking the person instead of their ideas, trying to make them look bad instead of focusing on the issue.	When criticized for breaking a promise, someone responds, “Well, what about when you didn’t keep your promise last year?”
Whataboutism	Ignoring criticism by bringing up something unrelated that the other person did wrong.	Interrupting someone repeatedly during their answer so they can’t make their point.
Interruptions	Cutting off the other person when they’re talking, making it hard for them to finish or stay on track.	Interrupting someone over and over again during their answer so they can’t make their point.
False Dichotomy	Cutting off the other person when they’re talking can make it difficult for them to finish or stay on track.	Saying, “You either support this bill, or you don’t care about safety,” when there are other options.
Appeal to Emotion	Trying to make people feel angry, scared, or sad instead of using logical arguments.	Telling a sad story about a family losing their home to avoid answering a question about taxes.
Non Sequiturs	Making a statement or conclusion that doesn’t connect to what was said before, confusing the issue.	Someone is talking about school rules, and the other person suddenly says, “What about the cafeteria food?”
Red Herring	Making it seem like there are only two extreme choices when, really, there are more options.	A politician talks about the environment, but the other person starts talking about jobs to avoid the topic.

Beyond the immediate fireworks, the audience consumes these events through a different lens. Post-debate fact-checking has become a critical part of the process, with analysts dissecting every statement for accuracy after the cameras turn off. Social media amplifies every moment, turning highlights into viral soundbites that can dominate news cycles for days.

Ultimately, this debate will be remembered not just for the candidates’ policies but for the lasting impression they leave on voters. As history shows, presidential debates are rarely about who “wins” in the traditional sense—they’re about who captures the nation’s attention and controls the narrative post-debate.