Before the Vice Presidential Debate, by Simon Ateba

Before the debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, I was ruthlessly attacked by the same emotional crowd that was outraged I dared suggest either Trump or Harris could win. "Have you seen her talk? How dare you? Trump will crush her," they said. They accused me of losing touch with reality, claiming they were the ones attuned to the cosmos. When I maintained that debates rarely change votes and are more made-for-TV than reflective of leadership, they insisted I was afraid Trump would annihilate Harris and that I was biased in her favor.

As the debate unfolded and I posted that Trump was losing, the same emotional crowd launched another brutal attack—these yes-men, who would push you to your grave while singing your praises. By the time it was over, shocked by what they had witnessed, they began to allege conspiracy theories—claiming that ABC News had fed Harris the questions in advance, or that some whistleblower had insider information. They were unable to see how captured they were by their emotions, unable to see reality as it was, not as they wished it to be.

The greatest danger to anyone is failing to master their emotions—to take a step back and view things objectively. The truth is not always what we want it to be, and those who are too emotionally invested will always struggle to see it clearly.

A day before the vice-presidential debate between JD Vance and Tim Walz, I would say the same thing: this debate could go either way. Vance is intelligent but often comes across as unlikable, with underdeveloped views on women, race, and children that seem borrowed from others rather than formed from personal experience. Walz, on the other hand, is 20 years older and has more executive experience as a governor, but his policies are seen as far-left, and he sometimes acts erratically, though he's excellent at projecting those flaws onto his opponents. While Vance has a sharper educational background, Walz connects with the audience in a way that Vance often cannot. The debate will likely pit intelligence against relatability, and as the saying goes: people don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care. Vance needs to appear more reliable, not just knowledgeable, while Walz needs to demonstrate his expertise, not just charm. Ultimately, the debate could go either way, and it’s unlikely to sway many voters.

This brings me to my final point. For the past two and a half months, ever since Harris entered the race and shook things up, I’ve been saying the same thing: this election is wide open and could go either way. Trump could win. Harris could win. It's a tight race, often within the margin of error. Polls are not an exact science; they are a sample, not a full survey of the electorate. No one has polled every single voter out there—not even the armchair experts online who offer no solutions, only criticism.

I am continually shocked that people, driven by emotion, are so narrow in their thinking. They never entertain the possibility that things may not go as expected. They lock themselves into echo chambers, hearing only what they want to hear, and then act surprised when reality doesn't match their expectations. They blame cheating, ghosts, or an invisible deep state rather than confronting the truth. They fail to understand that people like me have been urging them to keep an open mind, that this is an election, not a coronation. No one has won, no one has lost. The country is divided, and millions of people see things differently. Certainty is a dangerous trap. And no matter who wins, we will be disappointed with their leadership and broken promises within months. The outcome is rarely as exciting as the process, and we should leave our minds open rather than closed, rather than attacking those who urge caution. May God help us.