“The press is fist-pumping over Kamala Harris’s ‘win’ ” in last week’s debate, snarks The Wall Street Journal’s Kimberley A. Strassel. Yet “in the real world . . . there was no winner”: Americans hoping for answers to their “daily struggles with inflation, migrants, crime” got none. That hurts Harris: She’s “succeeded dodging questions about . . . her agenda” and “did so again Tuesday.” Trump was also short on details, but he doesn’t need a plan: Voters can compare his record to that of the “Biden-Harris economy.” It’s wisest to assume “Americans aren’t stupid” and are “unhappy” and “care” about the agenda. Unless Harris campaigns “in a way that acknowledges as much, she’ll struggle.” And “the press won’t help by spiking the football.”

“Antisemitism isn’t borne of ignorance at Columbia. Antisemitism is taught at Columbia,” thunders alum Bill Barr at The Free Press. “Antisemitism now lies at the ideological heart of the university, smuggled in through postmodern critical theory,” no matter what “the report issued last month by Columbia University’s Task Force on Antisemitism” says. Indeed, “one could be forgiven for thinking that it describes the University of Heidelberg circa 1933,” with “observant Jews being harassed and assaulted, and open calls” for their murder. “This hatred is a danger to all members of the Columbia community.” And “it will take more than a cleanup crew to remove the stain.” “It will take principled leaders with moral courage and ramrod spines, both of which seem to be in short supply.”

Part of Kamala Harris’ game plan, or “what should be her game plan,” doesn’t “appear to be working out so well,” frets The Liberal Patriot’s Ruy Teixeira: It’s “the need to boost support among the working class, which remains a serious weak spot for the Democrats and Harris.” “Harris, relative to Biden in 2020, is doing 10 points worse among white working-class voters and 18 points worse among nonwhite working-class voters.” “There’s no sugarcoating it — this is a serious problem for the Democrats.” It doesn’t mean “Harris can’t win,” but “there are clearly reasons for concern.” “Working-class Americans can contain their enthusiasm” for her; “the Democratic Achilles’ heel remains and could still deliver a second term for Trump.”

“On foreign policy, we don’t have a particularly clear sense of what Kamala Harris would do differently than President Biden,” warns National Review’s Jim Geraghty. And “if Harris wins the election,” Philip Gordon “is likely to be the next US national-security adviser.” To “get a real perspective on” him, look to Gordon’s book, in which he argues that “we should never bother attempting to topple a hostile regime again.” Gordon goes on to “score Iraq, the Obama-era ‘Arab Spring’”, the toppling of Moammar Khaddafi in Libya “and the US operations against Syria’s Bashar al-Assad,” as American failures. Gordon also eschews deterrence and sanctions as policies that either “don’t work, or they take years to work.” So what would Kamala’s foreign-policy prescription be? In short: “Doing nothing.”

 “I often wonder why advocates for urban living rarely grapple with a main reason many people won’t live in cities: the incompetence of urban governments,” grumbles Steven Greenhut at Reason. Understandably, people would “rather live in places where the government is at least responsive.” Big cities “are dominated by public-sector unions that are more interested in spending money than providing quality services.” Therefore, bad schools “are yet another disincentive to embrace urban life.” As a result, “cities such as San Francisco and Seattle have largely become childless thanks to poor schools, a high cost of living, and crime concerns.” It’s time for “innovative” solutions “that give residents a choice.” “Competition is the only way to lower costs and improve service.”

— Compiled by The Post Editorial Board