To anyone thinking this presidential election is going to be about the economy, or immigration, or crime, the environment, health care, the size and role of the executive branch, or, God forbid, foreign policy and defense… forget it. This election will be reduced to pop star endorsements, how many times some nut-job takes a shot at a former president, and, maybe, whose fringe sounds the craziest at any given point.

That “debate” last week told you pretty much all you need to know about the campaign without telling you anything at all. I really wish the networks would quit calling these productions “debates,” since doing so tortures any meaning out of the word, which ought to be reserved for describing a well-structured intellectual discipline and an honorable and useful polemical tool. None of that describes what we saw, from either side, in the slightest.

I don’t envy the party bosses who had to put their dutiful spin on the show. Granted, it was somewhat easier for Democrats. Former President Donald Trump, by any objective measure, lost, just by lacking any modicum of discipline and allowing himself to be baited. That had to make the task at hand an almost impossible one for both (!) state GOP chairs (well, maybe not for Dave Williams, who’s cult-like devotion to Trump is so rigidly unwavering Trump could announce that as president he intended to surrender to North Korea and Williams would explain that the a careful reading of the Founders would reveal their foreshadowing of Kim Il-Sung’s Juche philosophy). Presumptive GOP Chair Eli Bremer did his level best, but it required some impressive gymnastics.

Stay up to speed: Sign up for daily opinion in your inbox Monday-Friday

The Colorado Democratic Party’s one-and-only chair, Shad Murib, obviously had an easier time of it, but he still had to make some stuff up, like touting Vice President Kamala Harris’ “vison for the future”. If that vision includes anything beyond the recitation of carefully planned but meaningless platitudes and prodding Trump into rabbit holes, then it is so opaque and myopic no amount of optometric alchemy could hope to salvage it.

And yes, the howls from Republicans about the atrocious conduct of the ABC moderators is valid, and they deserve their share of censure for their glaringly obvious bias, but so what? Trump knew going in, as all Republican candidates do, the scales were tipped against him. You account for that and proceed accordingly. You don’t make their job ludicrously easy.

So Harris “won” the “debate” simply on account she stayed awake, let Trump be Trump and avoided saying anything that could get her in trouble. Like policy positions or anything of substance.

It’s not all that surprising, then, so much ink was spilled in the aftermath of the “debate” (bear I mind that I write this as one who deplores the superfluous use of quotation marks for rhetorical emphasis, but I find myself without choice) on the fact Taylor Swift endorsed Harris. It would appear that, given the amount of coverage it received, this is a big deal. I’m not sure of Ms. Swift’s position on the continuation of America’s policy of strategic ambiguity concerning Taiwan’s security, or the Nippon Steel’s acquisition of U.S. Steel, or how best to deal with weapon transfers between Russia and a potentially nuclear Iran, but I hear she is as joyfully full of joy for joyful things as that joyful Ms. Harris.

In fairness, I read perhaps the Swift endorsement may be backfiring: a poll has revealed 20% of respondents said they are “somewhat” or “much less likely” to vote for Harris in light of the Swift proclamation. So, a glimmer of hope, perhaps.

Meanwhile, Trump has done little, if anything, to reset the record after his rambling television performance. Last weekend however, another nutjob took a pot shot at the former president. This marks the second assassination attempt against Trump in about two months. Now, the important things to note about that are, one, both, thankfully, missed, and, two, Congress needs to quickly appropriate sufficient resources to the Secret Service to grant the candidate the full level of security afforded to a sitting president. On this score, even some democrats are in agreement, including Rep. Ro Khanna (D-California), who, in a rare moment of clarity, wrote an op-ed calling for just that in the Washington Post, of all places.

The political thing to note about the attempt is it will probably garner Trump enough of a sympathy bump to keep the race essentially tied, even if it’s too late for him to magnify Harris’ policy weaknesses, even among the policies he shares with her.

These are the types of things this election will come down to. Two un-serious candidates vying for what is arguably the most serious job in the country. Fortunately, the United States is about far more than the presidency; her institutions are strong and will likely survive four years under either one of them. The hit on America’s national self-esteem is another question entirely.

Kelly Sloan is a political and public affairs consultant and a recovering journalist based in Denver.