Squaring off at Philadelphia’s National Constitution Center for their first – and possibly only – debate last night, September 10, former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris sought to stake their claims as the right candidate to occupy the Oval Office. While Harris probably exceeded expectations, her performance also highlighted some of the structural flaws in her candidacy. But beyond the soundbites, what did each hopeful deliver to the viewing public?
The Highs and Lows
It is worth remembering that presidential debates are not solely about combat with the opposing team; they are an opportunity to speak to the base, the voters who may be against you, and the all-important independents who may still be weighing their options. With this in mind, it is not always the barbs and zingers that matter.
Kamala Harris’s high tide moment was – perhaps unsurprisingly – on the matter of abortion. Rather than let Trump’s statements speak for themselves, she tied him directly to state-level restrictions and accused him of preparing to sign a national ban if he returned to office. She said, “Now in over 20 states, there are Trump abortion bans,” and that “The government, and Donald Trump certainly, should not be telling a woman what to do with her body.” There is little doubt that the term “Trump Abortion Bans” will become the new cri de coeur of her campaign and surrogates.
Her low points were refusing to acknowledge that she has flip-flopped on a number of issues, and, surprisingly, the events of January 6, 2021.
Moderator Linsey Davis asked, “In your last run for president, you said you wanted to ban fracking. Now you don’t. You wanted mandatory government buyback programs for assault weapons. Now your campaign says you don’t. You supported decriminalizing border crossings. Now you’re taking a harder line. I know you say that your values have not changed. So then why have so many of your policy positions changed? “
It may have been presented as an opportunity to allow her to deal with the criticism she has faced on this apparent non-sequitur, but she fumbled it badly. Rather than addressing it, she launched into an anti-Trump diatribe that focused on elements such as his privileged upbringing and listed a slew of her 2024 campaign promises.
Regarding the event of Jan. 6, this should have been a slam dunk moment for the presidential hopeful. Instead, she declared that it was “the worst attack on our democracy since the Civil War.” A tone-deaf statement considering that today is September 11.
Donald Trump, despite what some might consider to be a disappointing performance, seemed to understand the mission with regard to speaking to the home audience. He delivered some solid set pieces, most notably his closing statement, where he said:
“So, she just started by saying she’s going to do this, she’s going to do that, she’s going to do all these wonderful things. Why hasn’t she done it? She’s been there for three and a half years. They’ve had three and a half years to fix the border. They’ve had three and a half years to create jobs and all the things we talked about. Why hasn’t she done it? She should leave right now, go down to that beautiful white house, go to the capitol, get everyone together and do the things you want to do. But you haven’t done it. And you won’t do it. Because you believe in things that the American people don’t believe in.”
He concluded, “We have wars going on in the Middle East. We have wars going on with Russia and Ukraine. We’re going to end up in a third world war.”
Trump’s low points were allowing himself to get dragged into exchanges that he should have avoided. Specifically, he tried to explain his views on Kamala Harris’ presentation of her race and got drawn into a discussion on whether Haitian migrants in Ohio were eating family pets. Both of these tangents should have been expected and swiftly dismissed.
A Fact-Checking Spree?
There are moments during televised presidential debates that have viewers shouting at their screens. Rather than such outbursts being limited to a single moment, however, there was a trend that – in some ways – may have damaged Harris more than it helped her.
Moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis were quick to fact-check, but only for one candidate. They called out Trump on a number of issues – some valid, some not – without affording the same level of scrutiny to Harris. At one point, after the former president noted that a statement he had made was done so in a sarcastic manner, Muir incredulously noted, “We didn‘t detect sarcasm.”
As well, the ABC duo attempted to rebut Donald Trump on statements regarding abortion, immigrants eating pets in Ohio, the 2020 election, and crime statistics. Notably, even the Associated Press pointed out that “ABC moderators did not correct any statements made by Harris.” Was this because she spoke nothing but the truth? Not quite.
Harris repeated the Charlottesville “very fine people” hoax, which has been debunked endlessly by even the most anti-Trump outlets. Further, she claimed Trump left her and Joe Biden the worst unemployment rate since the Great Depression, denied her reversal on fracking, and claimed that Trump would sign a national abortion ban.
While on-the-spot fact checks can be a useful tool in reining in candidates, when they are applied to only one side, they tend to leave a bitter taste in the mouth. As Trump posted on social media shortly after the debate, “I thought that was my best Debate, EVER, especially since it was THREE ON ONE!”
Failure Factors
Each candidate had a specific job to do. Donald Trump had to tie his opponent to the last four years of governance; Kamala Harris needed to distance herself from the Biden administration and present as a neophyte presidential hopeful. While it could be argued that neither ultimately prevailed in these challenges, the vice president perhaps moved the needle more during the 90-minute debate.
(Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
Harris presented herself as relatively measured and managed to keep notorious word salads a bit less puzzling than usual. However, she also didn’t deliver much beyond not failing. Expectations were low for her performance, and she exceeded them. For Donald Trump, the bar was set somewhat higher – after all, his last foray resulted in Joe Biden ending his candidacy.
Trump failed to land any killer blows and, at times, appeared visibly frustrated with the moderators’ uneven treatment. If it was Harris’ goal to knock the former president off-kilter, she was partially successful. In the plus column for the 45th president, however, he did manage to deliver his message to the public, something that appears to have been missing from the VP’s performance.
Cementing Opinion
The biggest loser of last night’s debate was neither Kamala Harris nor Donald Trump, but rather ABC News outing itself as seemingly incapable of presenting a fair and balanced event. While Ms. Harris will be on the receiving end of plaudits this morning, the nagging question that must pervade through all analysis is how she would have fared in a situation where the moderators were not acting on her behalf.
She may well have shined in such a scenario, but that is something the American public will likely never know for sure. And the public isn’t as easily fooled as the network in question believes. This was a good night for the Harris campaign, but it is perhaps indelibly marred by the sneaking suspicion that she can’t cut it without a partisan and supportive network batting for her team.
Those who supported the vice president already will wake up this morning believing they have made the right choice. Those who opposed her will likely be frustrated at the naked bias of the moderators. As always, it is those who are not firmly in either camp that have been done a true disservice, and it is almost certainly this group that will prove the deciding factor in the upcoming election.
The Show Must Go On – But Whose Show Is It?
The one area in which the former president can claim a solid victory is his post-debate strategy. While Kamala Harris went straight back under cover and resumed her avoidance of substantive media questioning, Trump took the proverbial bull by the horns.
Immediately after the event, Trump walked into the “spin room” and began his own tale of the tape without the use of surrogates. An unusual move, for sure, but one that seized the narrative before the spin machine could really get into action. He took questions – something Harris has notably failed to do – and declared boldly that “It was the best debate I’ve ever had.” Responding to the news that the VP now wants to do a second debate, he again has a pat answer, saying, “She wants a second debate because she lost tonight very badly.” Speaking to Fox’s Sean Hannity later in the evening, he raised the issue of another debate, making the case that “When you’re a prizefighter, and you lose, you immediately want a new fight.”
By engaging the Fourth Estate directly after the ABC event, Mr. Trump has – to some degree – shifted the focus away from the night and onto the future. It’s a ploy, no doubt, but one that is only effective because Ms. Harris has thus far been inaccessible to the media. The debate was important because it may be the only time the two hopefuls go head-to-head, but with 54 days to go before the election, there’s a lot of press coverage to be had.
Soundbites from the debate will have an outsized impact on presidential performance analysis today, the morning after. And yet, six weeks is an incredibly long time in politics. Unless Kamala Harris decides to engage the electorate without the crutch of a friendly media, she may find that it is her opponent who ends up defining her bid for the presidency more than the pre-packaged soundbites ever could.
