There are a few possible reasons that Harris fared poorly in the second debate. We don’t know which reasons, if any, contributed to her downturn, but it’s worth reviewing how things might have gone astray.

First, voters’ tolerance for her attacking the rather beloved former vice president seems to have run out. Going back to the well one too many times on busing and bringing every question back to a confrontation with Biden turned out to be misguided. Harris is great at “prosecuting the case” — but against President Trump, not Biden.

AD

AD

Second, she continued to struggle in explaining her health-care plan. She got kudos when she rolled out a plan that omitted some of the downsides of Medicare-for-all (e.g., taking away private insurance), but she seemed to be defending her plan as if it were a Medicare-for-all plan in the vein of Sanders and Warren.

Third, she did not handle the attacks on her own record, even the barrage from Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii), effectively. She cannot merely deny the claims are true or fall back on her declaration that she was a progressive prosecutor.

Finally, while she normally exudes warmth and joy, she at times appeared exasperated or dismissive of questions. For a candidate with a magnetic personality, she sure seemed less than thrilled to be there.

AD

The good news for Harris and her supporters is that all of this is fixable, and she remains in the top four. Regarding the debate missteps, she surely can redirect her attacks to Trump in the next debate, find two or three bullet points to describe her health-care plan (and tout that it doesn’t take private insurance away) and come up with a succinct defense to the most common accusations against her tenure as district attorney. (She might consider South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg’s tactic: Take responsibility for errors or blind spots.)

AD

Moreover, outside of the debates, Harris remains one of the most engaging and fun (yes, it’s important to have fun) candidates. Her impassioned attacks on Trump for inciting white nationalism and a punchy list of gun safety proposals were quite effective this week.

The key to the future debates and the race as a whole might be the ability to project toughness and gravitas rather than any specific policy position. Voters want to know that you have ideas, but they don’t necessarily fly-speck them. If you sound as though you understand them and have confidence in them, voters will conclude that you’re a serious candidate. (It’s horrible to admit that substance counts for so little in the debates, but until the format changes, these won’t be substantive policy contests.)

AD

Harris doesn’t need to knock down Biden, at least not yet. She needs to get past Sanders, who is already slipping, and Warren, who has been on a roll. Putting herself to the right of them (but the left of Biden) makes her the Biden alternative without the “socialist” problem; being the empathetic and passionate candidate makes it easier for voters to connect with her emotionally than with the more reserved Warren and the downright grumpy Sanders.

AD

In short, being the younger, female, nonwhite, center-left alternative to Biden is a good place to be for now, even if she has slipped a few notches in the polls. (Staying in high single digits months before voting starts can work to her benefit by lowering expectations.) By contrast, being an imitator of the far-left candidates and a Biden antagonist turns out to be a bad look for her.

The best news of all: By September, and certainly by February when voting starts, no one is going to remember anyone’s second debate performance.