The super bias are saying she was angry and combative. She was passionate. She was prepared. She didn't fold up. Yes, some answers were thin, but so are many of Trumps answers. I was, dare I say, impressed. That's my intial take away. Not waiting for the talking heads to tell me what to think.
The spin is coming out from the Trump campaign and their surrogates immediately. The Trump campaign called Harris' interview performance a train wreck. '“Kamala Harris’ interview with Bret Baier was a TRAIN WRECK. Kamala was angry, defensive, and once again abdicated any responsibility for the problems Americans are facing," Trump Campaign National Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement.' The interview was short -- merely half an hour -- and my perspective was the word "combative" is appropriate. On the other hand she needed to be combative -- the style and questions of the interview where Brett would many times not let her speak could be described as an "ambush" style interview -- which is what her campaign is calling it. '"Kamala Harris (strong) handled an ambush Fox interview light years better than the hash Donald Trump (unstable) made of the Fox pep rally disguised as a town hall," quipped adviser David Plouffe on X.' In my opinion she did moderately well considering this is an interview with a hostile network. I would not in any way say she "just won the election". I don't think this interview will change the minds of any voters.
Personally I thought she was just blustery and didn't do anything besides pivot and filibuster. A bit like a drowning person making a last gasp. But... I won't say that out loud for fear of being shot by her more deranged supporters.
. I think any of the few fence sitters left, especially women, will fall to the Kamala side of the fence. The girl power vibe was strong. Yes, those that are solid in the Trump camp won't be persuaded to change. On the other hand she didn't lose any of her support either IMO.