🌊 The Political Debate You Won't Hear

Did someone forward you this? Subscribe here free!

In the last three months, we’ve interviewed over 500 swing voters across five swing states. We visited swaths of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina, and Georgia, and had conversations with hundreds of people who are voting for both candidates.

When we’d have political conversations with someone on one side or the other, we’d often ask a question: What would a smart person who disagrees say?

A lot of political conversation is not in “good faith.” People make stuff up, attack the other, say stuff they know isn’t accurate just to win an argument. This is so prevalent that it’s become difficult to hear a real conversation between two people who disagree. That’s inspired us to run a series of made-up conversations about how two people would debate in good faith about the day’s most important issues.

This series has been informed by the hundreds of conversations we’ve had with both candidates’ supporters. We went through these recorded conversations and boiled down the key points that we kept hearing, including about immigration, democracy, Ukraine, and the economy.

One takeaway is that while everyone has their own views and preferences, people of the same party thousands of miles away often say the same things. It’s almost as if the media has told them what to think…

Another was that people who disagree rarely talk to each other.

It wasn’t always this way: Back in 1858, political opponents Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas campaigned together, debating each other in towns across Illinois, where they were both running for Senate. People could hear both sides and make up their own minds.

Today, that would never happen. But that’s inspired a series we’re beginning today: The Trump-Harris Debates. We hope you enjoy and are curious to hear who you think wins each debate.

The Trump-Harris Debates: Immigration

The Facts: In the first three years of Trump’s term, the US averaged 637,000 illegal border encounters annually, per the US Customs and Border Protection. Numbers then dipped during the pandemic. Under Biden’s presidency, the figure has averaged 2.2M, with 2.1M arriving in the year ending last month.

The Trump Voter (TV) says: This is because the Biden-Harris Administration was soft on illegals and immediately reversed Trump’s border policies, like the “Remain in Mexico” plan, which made migrants await processing in Mexico. We need tough policies to prevent people from entering the country and to conduct deportations, beginning with criminals, to deter them from coming here.

The Harris Voter (HV) says: Biden didn’t let “illegals” come into the country. He curbed the excesses of Trump’s policies, which were inhumane. Remember “kids in cages?” Besides, most of the people detained at the border were asylum seekers.

TV: Anyone can seek asylum: You realize all you have to do is apply online before crossing, turn yourself in at the border, and claim persecution? Then they’re released into the country for years while they await a determination. They’re abusing the system. 

HV: Some are, but many are not. They’re fleeing crises in Venezuela, Haiti, and elsewhere.

TV: They could have claimed asylum in any country between there and here. Besides, most of the arrivals are economic migrants and many aren’t even from the Americas.

HV: You do realize Congress had an opportunity to fix this situation and Trump tanked it, despite the bipartisan border bill being backed by many top Republicans?

Some facts: 

The border bill would have made it harder to claim asylum, funded more migrant processing and border agents, and sped up deportation requests. It also would have allowed an unlimited number of unaccompanied minors (around 25% of border detentions) to enter the country and would have “shut down” the border if the average of daily detentions exceeded 5,000 in a week.

TV: The bill would not have solved the problem: 5,000 a day average would have cemented 150,000 migrants a month. And the migrant processing funding – enough for just 50,000 beds – would only be enough for 10 days of arrivals. This wasn’t a serious bill – and they waited three years to propose it. Then they linked it to sending aid to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. Why should protecting the border be contingent on funding arms to Ukraine?

HV: It’s clearly better than nothing and was endorsed by many people who work on the border. Trump killed it for his own purposes because he needed the political football.

TV: The fact is that the Biden Administration used its executive powers to crack down on migrant arrivals earlier this year, once it realized Democrats were in big trouble. He could have done that four years ago but the far left wouldn’t let him.

HV: Better late than never. We have an obligation to let many asylum-seekers in and given what we now know, Harris clearly will not let things get as bad. She’s even endorsed building part of the wall! 

The Trump-Harris Debates: Inflation

Editor’s Note

Thanks to the many of you who said you enjoyed Sunday’s article from Michigan’s Tri-Cities area. That was a fascinating trip. We’ll be back before the election soon with reporting from Dearborn, Detroit, and Georgia!

-Max and Max

RocaNews co-founders