This is my surface level impression of how the Fox "debate" went for Kamala, which is likely inaccurate and incomplete due to the fact that I watched the last 10-15 minutes on fast-forward after being so frustrated with what I witnessed that I lost patience with Bret. Why Bret and not Kamala? Because I expected Bret to send her off with a sound defeat, which regrettably didn't happen in my opinion. You could say that this makes me unqualified to comment on the interview, but would it, though? How do most people ingest media these days? Do they really sit down and analyze nearly 30 minutes of footage?
My contention is that Kamala's audience most certainly do not, and therefore if she "won" the first 10 minutes, she's pretty much the "winner" of that "debate". Yes, many Republican voters will sit and analyze every statement with zeal, but your average Democrat is happy with 10 second soundbites curated by CNN—though, of course, some dig deeper. So, as Republican voters cheer that Kamala has soundly lost this encounter, most Democrats are busy driving their kids to soccer practice, and thinking about what they're going to have for dinner rather than dwelling on her successful rebuttal of an aggressive Fox "propagandist".
Let me clarify, I don’t think Kamala did a good job answering Bret Baier’s questions. What she did well was evade him, while he did a poor job of cornering her. That's not saying Kamala made any good points. It's just saying that Bret lost opportunities to show that the content of her words is not only misleading, but devoid of meaning. The fact that Democrats called it a "debate" is one indication that Bret lost this battle, because this was supposed to be a journalistic interview, not a confrontation.
It was like a boxing match between a boxer and a puncher where the boxer gets on their bike, dancing around the ring like Muhammad Ali, while the puncher throws at nothing but air, because he can’t cut off the ring or pin the boxer against the ropes. She danced all night, showing fancy footwork and even landing some jabs, while Baier spent the interview chasing her around the ring without ever getting the opportunity to sit down on his punches. When some punches did connect, she shoulder-rolled out of trouble, or rope-a-doped him like Mayweather playing with an inferior journeyman opponent.
For example, on the crucial question: “How are you any different than Biden?” she didn’t answer directly; in fact, she didn't answer him at all. Instead, when Baier tried pressing her, she pulled the classic move: “You know what I’m talking about.” When he responded, “No, I don’t...” she bought herself time by stringing together a bunch of random words. The moment she regained her footing, she deflected and went into full attack mode on Trump.
Instead of stopping Kamala in her tracks and demanding an answer about how she will do anything differently than Biden, Baier let her redirect the conversation to Trump. From that point on, he was playing defense instead of pressing his initial attack. Kamala controlled the pace of the debate, using underhanded tactics to obfuscate and divert from straightforward questions. She was like a slippery fish he couldn’t catch, and Baier apparently wasn’t wearing gloves with any grip.
I know I'm tackling these issues out of order in regard to the interview, but the bottom line is that she also beat Bret on the border issue. He couldn’t pin her down on any specifics, and to an average Democratic viewer—who likely doesn’t care much about border policy and lacks detailed knowledge—she appeared competent enough. She pushed back on Bret from the very beginning, making it seem as though she had always been tough on immigration and crime since her days as a District Attorney in San Francisco.
Even the part where he clearly demonstrated that her border policy had been so bad that she was actually responsible for numerous deaths lost to violent crimes committed by illegal immigrants was brushed off by Kamala, who conveniently blamed Trump for not caring about finding real solutions, implying she would. She claimed the border had always been broken, even under Trump, and that she was going to solve the various problems that existed, never acknowledging the fact that she hadn't done so until now, and there's no evidence to show that she will in the future.
He almost had her on the border, but she pivoted by implying that if her border bill had been passed, none of this would have happened, shifting the blame to Trump and Republicans once again. She also leaned into showing remorse and empathy to the families of the victims, which likely did enough to assuage Democrats into thinking, "Well, you can't stop all crime..." and it didn't help that Bret came across as aggressive by not allowing her to finish her sentences.
This is precisely how JD Vance made a fool out of Dana Bash, who belligerently cut him off and wouldn't allow him to speak in a CNN interview. All Kamala needed to do at this point was to project a narrative that aligned with the desire to set the Dreamers free, which many Democrats view as a noble cause, and that was the end of that issue. Baier dropped the ball here because, from a Democratic perspective, he failed to challenge her in a way that would resonate, and she came across as a concerned, caring politician, even though nothing can be further from the truth.
On the economy, she made broad assertions that Baier didn’t counter at all. Maybe he didn’t have enough economic knowledge to confront her evasions, but this was another lost opportunity. As a result, from a Democratic perspective, she won the debate on three key issues:
Again, I want to emphasize that I’m not agreeing with the content of her arguments. This isn’t about truth. It’s about who won the debate in the minds of Democratic voters. Kamala wasn’t there to win over Republicans—she knows no Republican in their right mind would vote for her. Most Republicans think she’s nuts. But for the Democratic base, she gave the appearance of being in control and quick-witted, which is all that matters.
In today’s political landscape, especially with Democrats, the appearance of being a righteous, articulate, and rational winner is what counts. Allegiance to party, intersectionality, and group loyalty override the need for deep analysis. There’s a common stereotype among liberals that Trump's Republican base are uneducated, rural MAGA supporters without an original thought in their head—a portrayal reinforced by the media and entertainment industries. While not all liberals believe this, it shapes much of the mainstream narrative. Republicans are painted either as evil masterminds like Dick Cheney, DeSantis, and McConnell, scheming to destroy democracy, or as clueless, vapid populists like Palin or George W. Bush—the kind you’d have a beer with.
But the truth is, while many Democrats pride themselves on being educated, socially conscious, and emotionally intelligent compared to Republicans, groupthink behavior can, and often does creep in—leaving even the most well-informed to follow party narratives unquestioningly, consequently leading many Republicans to rightly view them as sheep. Republicans think critically, fact-check, and do their research. Democrats, on the other hand, tend to focus on optics. Many don’t have the time or inclination to get into the specifics of policy, and unlike Republicans, they don't ruminate and complain about politics—they’re busy juggling work, family, and vacations to Bermuda. Thus, for the most part, many Democrats juggle life’s responsibilities and seem to engage with politics differently than Republicans, focusing more on the big picture rather than getting bogged down in daily political discourse.
For many Democrats and Republicans alike, the sheer volume of information flowing into their devices and lives makes research overwhelming. They rely on trusted media to distill the issues, which can lead to unintentional gaps in critical engagement. When you view research as "stressful, boring, and unnecessary," and when trusted liberal media outlets already tell you what to think, why dig deeper? If challenged by a trusted friend about an issue, Democrats will generally admit they don't know much about the subject, and honestly, who can blame them?
We're all on information overload, and it's impossible to keep up with everything about everything. So, just ask a friend, or look at a liberal media outlet's headline, and you're all set. Wondering what to do with your money? Just watch a Suze Orman episode, or ask a coworker which mutual fund package to signup for in your 401K. Who needs to learn about economics, or how money works? That's for the unscrupulous, rich Republican business owners and executives who take advantage of their unlucky liberal underlings.
Likewise, confrontational platforms like Twitter are political war zones to be shunned, where opposing views are "too intense" and belligerent to engage with. It's more fun to stick to TikTok, Twitch, Kick, and Discord (if you're a Gen-Z'r), Instagram (if you're a Millennial or Gen-X'r), or Facebook (if you're a Boomer). Politics is for the birds, and to be vehemently avoided at all costs unless in the company of likeminded "reasonable" people (read "other Democrats"). It’s not uncommon for some Democrats to disengage from political confrontation, preferring to express frustration and move on rather than engage in prolonged debates.
There's a common liberal understanding that if a conservative presses you in a political exchange, it's important to immediately disengage, but not before giving them a piece of your mind. While some Democrats try to engage thoughtfully with Republicans, the vast majority of liberals react quite defensively to conservative arguments, viewing them as malicious attempts at manipulation. There is a generally accepted conversational approach among liberals that involves immediately shutting down Republicans if they try to "brainwash" them with conservative ideas. This attitude leaves no room for constructive debate or a free-flowing exchange of ideas, only for uncompromising agreement.
In that context, if a candidate appears to win a debate, Democrats will support them, especially when the liberal media reinforces that narrative. Kamala’s performance, despite lacking substance, will resonate with her base because she looked composed and confident. Baier, on the other hand, failed to nail her down, and his inability to challenge her effectively gave her the upper hand.
So, if you’ve recently shifted toward Republican thinking, it’s easy to spot where Kamala’s arguments fall apart. But to Democrats, the content isn’t the point. It’s all about optics—and in this debate, Kamala regrettably won in the minds of her base.
