The recent debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, marked by a split-screen format, showcased Harris’s expressive body language and theatrical skills, giving her an edge in visuals. However, her performance lacked substantive content, and she struggled with unscripted moments. Trump, though a seasoned debater with sharp responses, appeared less refined in contrast. The debate highlighted their contrasting styles: Harris, polished but vague on policy, and Trump, substantive but lacking finesse. Both sides claimed victory, leaving swing voters to decide the final outcome.
Sign up for your early morning brew of the BizNews Insider to keep you up to speed with the content that matters. The newsletter will land in your inbox at 5:30am weekdays. Register here
By Chuck StephensÂ
It was a lively debate. No studio audience but a large number of viewers. Well moderated in spite of the obvious ABC bias in favour of Kamala Harris. Two podiums about two meters apart, but the TV editors removed the distance with a split screen. So viewers watched the speaker right beside the quiet debater. Kamala Harris is younger, more attractive and more expressive than Donald Trump (in terms of body language), so this allowed her to win bonus points even when he was speaking. To the extent that this split screen could be construed as partisan.
Harris was better on theatrics than on content. It was only the second time on two months that she was tested by an unscripted interview. One could see why because there was not much substance to what she had to say. On two points she used her prosecutorial skills to corner Trump – on abortion and on January 6th.
On abortion, she spoke passionately but Trump’s response had its merits. She wants a national condonation, whereas he replied that after 52 years of Roe v. Wade, the matter has been devolved to state level. Where the people can decide, without Nanny State intervention.
On January 6th, she was present at the Capitol as a US Senator, and she alleged that Trump incited the riot. Trump’s usual reply came back – that his speech that day used the terms “peacefully and patriotically” and that Nancy Pelosi refused to call in the National Guard. Nothing new, except for the new spokesperson that America has been wanting to see in action.
Trump speaks like a New York taxi driver. He is actually a bright debater and a great communicator, but he is not a class act like Ronald Reagan. He is all business, and again the studio set was strange. The only time he spoke onscreen alone, as might have been expected throughout, was in the closing statements. They both got to close and only then was the split screen dropped. Otherwise they appeared to be cheek-by-jowel onscreen when they were actually standing two meters apart.
Trump rambles a lot because he is so bright. His mind jumps all over, but he has trained himself not to speak in platitudes or insipid clichés. Harris alleged that leaders she has met on her travels as Vice president think Trump is a joke. Platitude. Trump responded that Victor Orban of Hungary has been highly complementary. He related that when Orban was asked why Europe is in such a state of war, his reply was that the missing ingredient is Trump.
Sadly, those who wanted to hear more about Harris’ policy came away disappointed. At times you could hear memorized echoes of her scripted speeches. This came across as too slick.
Whereas Trump is a street-fighter. His responses were grating by comparison to Harris’ trite banality, so take your pick. He is clearly the veteran, better equipped and sure of himself. He was able to end on the right note – why is Harris making hazy promises about the future? Why didn’t they do it in the present? This question is on everybody’s mind. She is more style than substance. By comparison, Trump is long on substance and short on finesse.
One American made her mind up after the debate – Taylor Swift. She endorsed Kamala Harris.
Fox News has offered to host a second debate. It would be good for another debate to occur in a less biased setting. Fox News is a good counter-point for a second debate. The Republicans say that the ABC moderators were “pro-Kamala activists”.
Sadly, the debate format seems to exacerbate the polarization instead of promoting civility. Both debaters played the man more than the ball. (That would be the woman in Harris’ case.) I wonder why they don’t hold a podcast format with two candidates across the table from one another, with a can of Coke and a “ping pong” approach? Not attacking but engaging on policy and strategy. Something less confrontational would be most welcome.
Both sides could call it a victory, so it was really a tie score. Trump’s baseline support is solid. Only time will tell which way “swing voters” will trend one way or the other. On the board, according to various polls, they are basically tied. If this debate was “extra time”, then it will need a soccer shoot-out to settle the election.
Read also:
