Political Experts Agree Trump-Harris Debate 'Won't Move the Needle'

Neither Donald Trump nor Kamala Harris made any gain among the viewers of their first —and very likely only — presidential debate Tuesday night.

That was the consensus of a group of historians and seasoned debate experts who spoke to Newsmax shortly after the nationally televised clash between the two major party candidates.

"Both Harris and Trump avoided major missteps, but probably didn't change any votes either," concluded Chapman University (California) professor Luke Nichter.

"Each spoke to their base, and did not expect to be understood by the other's base."

Nichter, author of the critically acclaimed book "The Year That Broke Politics: Collusion and Chaos in the Presidential Election of 1968," pointed to Trump's closing statement in which he asked "Why didn't she do it?"

"It was a question asked in Trump's closing statement, about why, if Harris has so many good ideas now, she didn't implement them the past 3½ years – or now, since she is still vice president: It should have been a line Trump kept on repeat all night rather than using it once in his closing statement," Nichter said.

"The moderators asked questions of Trump about virtually all of his most sensitive topics – abortion, Jan. 6, whether he still feels he won in 2020, and his past comments about Harris' race; yet, the moderators did not ask similarly difficult questions of Harris.

"She skillfully avoided answering their question whether Americans are better off today than four years ago. They didn't ask her about her work as the border czar. They let her off the hook on the question of whether she met with [Vladimir] Putin on the eve of the Ukraine war, and they didn't ask her any specific questions about whether she still believes in her past progressive positions – letting her blanket response stand that she is the same person today."

Irwin Gellman, now at work on his fourth volume on the life of Richard Nixon, agreed that "the two ABC moderators never even tried to be objective. Their mission was to nail Trump and soon it became obvious that it was three — the moderators and Kamala — against one, Trump."

He quickly added Harris "did not even give the appearance of being informed and all of her answers were platitudes and Trump could have gained ground by simply saying 'Bill Clinton was right [in the 1992 election] — It's the economy, stupid!'"

Gellman's conclusion was the debate "won't move the needle either way."

"For me, it's always a question of what one wants to strategically accomplish with a debate," said Switzerland-based public relations consultant Louis Perron, who has run numerous campaigns worldwide and wrote the book "Beat the Incumbent: Proven Strategies and Tactics to Win Elections."

"Trump should have used it to reset the campaign and finally draw the lines of distinction versus Harris in a way that works for him. He failed to fully accomplish that."

For Harris, Perron added, "I think that accomplishing a draw would have been enough as momentum is on her side. She certainly reached that minimum goal of hers. But probably more."

Noting that "the moderators are getting some heat online that they were biased," Perron said that "I think that's unfair: They made it clear from the beginning of the debate that they would let both candidates get away with dodging questions, and so they did."

More succinct was Daniel Schnur, professor at the University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Governmental Studies and onetime top aide to former California GOP Gov. Pete Wilson: "Trump started strong, but he let Harris get under his skin. It will be very telling to see if he accepts her challenge for another debate."

John Gizzi is chief political columnist and White House correspondent for Newsmax. For more of his reports, Go Here Now.