Take this for what it's worth, but it does provide at least an interesting counterpoint to the doom and gloom on the Right this morning. Kamala Harris left the impression that she stuck the landing last night, and perhaps it's more than just an impression. Reuters' focus group of 10 independents agreed that Harris won the debate last night.

But six of the ten now plan or are leaning to vote for Donald Trump:

Reuters interviewed 10 people who were still unsure how they were going to vote in the Nov. 5 election before they watched the debate. Six said afterward they would now either vote for Trump or were leaning toward backing him. Three said they would now back Harris and one was still unsure how he would vote.

Why? We'll get to that momentarily, but let's take a look at the big picture first. Reuters doesn't exactly have a reputation for either balance or a conservative tilt, after all. One would expect their idea of "undecided" to have a particular lean, just out of selection bias if nothing else. This is a small sample and doesn't have the representative weight needed for statistical predictive value, but it doesn't seem plausible that Reuters would have stacked it with crypto-MAGA voters either.

Now let's drill into the reasons why Trump won twice as many of these voters than Harris did. They agree that Harris performed well, but she didn't actually say anything. And more importantly, they don't see the election as a popularity contest. It comes down to trust, especially on economic policy:

The Trump converts said they trusted him more on the economy, even though all said they did not like him as a person. They said their personal financial situation had been better when he was president between 2017-2021. Some singled out his proposal to tax foreign imports, although economists say that is likely to raise prices.

Four of those six also said Harris did not convince them she would pursue different economic policies than Democratic President Joe Biden, a Democrat they largely blame for the high cost of living.

This gets to an argument that I suggested earlier, which is that people may view last night's debate through the wrong lens, and with the wrong expectations. The pundit and very-online classes look at this as a sparring match, and one in which Harris was supposedly far outclassed. Harris easily beat those expectations and surpassed others in provoking Trump into some angry responses. On style points, Harris won largely by showing up and remaining calm.

However, that's not what voters wanted out of the debate. Harris came into it as a cipher, and that's the way she left it as well, thanks in large part to the efforts by ABCs moderators. They rarely pressed her for specifics on policies, and only lightly challenged her wide-ranging flip-flops over the last eight weeks or so. Only a couple of days after finally producing an issues page and nearly two months of refusing to talk to reporters (except for 26 minutes on CNN), undecided voters wanted some "meat on the bones," as one focus-group member told Reuters.

And they didn't get it. Harris may have succeeded in zinging Trump, but at least in this group, her strategy to skate on issues and just disqualify Trump failed to land. Democrats have tried that strategy for months, and Harris brought out the heavy artillery on it in this debate after Joe Biden largely left it the details in the first debate:

HARRIS: Well, I think this is so rich. Coming from someone who has been prosecuted for national security crimes, economic crimes, election interference, has been found liable for sexual assault and his next big court appearance is in November at his own criminal sentencing. And let's be clear where each person stands on the issue of what is important about respect for the rule of law and respect for law enforcement. The former vice president called for defunding, federal law enforcement, 45,000 agents, get this, on the day after he was arraigned on 34 felony counts.

As I wrote yesterday, the disqualification strategy is an attempt to hide the fact that Harris has no substance, either in policy or in accomplishment at this level. Democrats have tried this strategy since January 6, 2021, and have leaned heavily into it all this year. Needless to say, it has not worked, not even for Joe Biden, who actually had a track record and a policy platform that he developed himself, or at least fronted. 

And at least with this focus group, it didn't land at all. Voters -- even undecided voters -- are not interested in DQs. They want that meat on the bones, and more to the point, they want a real change from the past four years. Harris not only is part of that status quo, she won't even offer an explanation of what will be different. These voters saw that, and decided to opt for actual change rather than an extension of the Biden administration.

Does this one focus group offer a predictive model from last night's debate? Don't count on it, but also don't get caught up in the zinger approach either.