In a spirited presidential debate, Vice-President Kamala Harris effectively dominated former President Donald Trump. While Trump struggled with his responses and resorted to personal attacks and false claims, Harris adeptly used her prosecutorial skills to highlight his record and provoke him into defensive, disjointed answers. Her strategic focus and sharp retorts led many instant polls to declare her the debate winner, solidifying her role as a formidable challenger.
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.
From The Economist, published under licence. The original article can be found on www.economist.com
© 2024 The Economist Newspaper Limited. All rights reserved.
The Economist
The presidential debate was a success for the vice-president ___STEADY_PAYWALL___
It should have been Donald Trump’s moment to shine: 26 minutes into the former president’s debate with Vice-President Kamala Harris, a moderator asked her why the administration of President Joe Biden waited until “six months before the election” to act against illegal immigration. Ms Harris never got round to answering that question. Instead she talked about fighting people-smuggling as a prosecutor, accused Mr Trump of sinking a bipartisan bill to strengthen the border and, addressing those watching at home, urged them to attend a Trump rally: they would hear him spew grievances and strange tales, she said, and they would watch as bored people got up and left. “The one thing you will not hear him talk about is you,” she concluded.
Ms Harris knew which line would get her opponent’s attention. “She said people start leaving,” a glowering Mr Trump blurted when he had a chance to speak. “People don’t go to her rallies. There’s no reason to go. And the people that do go, she’s busing them in and paying them.” He stumbled towards what should have been safe ground, illegal immigration, but chose to invoke a debunked tale about illegal immigrants eating the pets of the good citizens of Springfield, Ohio. Then he went back to insisting that people love his rallies.
The vice-president baited hook after hook for Mr Trump over the course of 90 minutes and each time he lunged for it. Whether she was invoking his old business school, Wharton, in attacking his economic plans, or implying his business success was due to a gigantic inheritance, or claiming world leaders did not respect him, Ms Harris repeatedly provoked Mr Trump to defend his self-image and his own record in office, rather than mount a sustained attack on her. Call it catch-and-decrease: she made the former president look small and angry and out of his depth. For most of the debate, she made herself appear the challenger, while he became the beleaguered incumbent with a record to defend.
Ms Harris had weak moments of her own. She looked nervous and seemed shaky in her first answer, before an early question on abortion helped her find her stride. A performance that was clear evidence of careful preparation may have struck some viewers as rehearsed, even artificial. For all her powerful demonstrations of empathy for the pain and fear of some Americans, such as women denied abortions, she failed when asked about the deaths of 13 soldiers during the withdrawal from Afghanistan to express any sympathy for them or their families.
Yet even then her prosecutorial approach may have rescued her: she attacked Mr Trump as having negotiated “one of the weakest deals you can imagine” and coddling the Taliban. Mr Trump, his pride again pricked—this time over the artistry of his dealmaking, of all vanities—began talking again about his own record. He recounted conversations he had with a Taliban leader he called Abdul. He insisted he had put a great agreement in place but “they blew it”. The agreement, he said, with characteristically foggy bluster, “said you have to do this this this this”.
Read more: 🔒 The Economist – Lexington: How do you solve the Biden problem?
Mr Trump clearly longed for his former, less mischievous and less agile opponent, Joe Biden, who abdicated the nomination after his dismal debate against Mr Trump on June 27th. Rather than concentrate on Ms Harris, Mr Trump repeatedly criticised Mr Biden, as though trying to will him back onto the stage. “They don’t respect Biden,” Mr Trump fumed, while insisting world leaders respected himself. “Where is our president?” he went on. “They threw him out of a campaign like a dog.”
Ms Harris responded smoothly with one of several lines that seemed practised: “It’s important to remind the former president you’re not running against Joe Biden. You’re running against me.” It was one of the very few times she referred to the president herself, as she repeatedly across the evening presented herself as the candidate of change, the one, as she put it in her closing statement, “focused on the future” rather than the past.
Supporters of Mr Trump criticised the moderators, two journalists from ABC, for challenging Mr Trump on some of his claims, though each time, as in the case of the pets of Springfield, Ohio, they had the facts on their side. They also followed up more often with Mr Trump when he evaded a question, as when he ducked answering whether he wanted Ukraine to win the war with Russia or whether he regretted anything he did on January 6th 2021, when his supporters attacked the Capitol (“I had nothing to do with that other than they asked me to make a speech,” Mr Trump said). Pressed about whether he had developed the health-care plan that he has long promised to replace Obamacare, he limply replied, “I have concepts of a plan. I’m not president right now.”
Meme machine
Ms Harris, running with a rapidly assembled agenda, cited at several points proposals for enhanced child tax credits and assistance for new homeowners as part of her vision for an “opportunity economy”. It was thin stuff, but given the vagueness emanating from Mr Trump it may have passed for seriousness about policy.
Instant polls suggested viewers judged Ms Harris the victor. Her performance delighted Democrats, and she supplied far more of the punchy moments that tend to get highlighted in newscasts and shared online. The Economist’s forecast had the race in essence tied going into the debate, and its effect is impossible to predict. Ms Harris surely did not convert any supporters of Mr Trump—who could?—but she may have assured some of the few independent-minded voters left that she is up to the job. She projected strength from before the debate began, when she appeared to surprise Mr Trump by striding across to his side of the stage and sticking out her hand. “Kamala Harris,” she said. “Let’s have a good debate.” Mr Trump told her to “have fun”. She did.
Read also:
