THE EVENT THE world was waiting for – the first showdown between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump on a stage in Philadelphia with an enormous audience tuned in – is in the history books. How did it go? The reaction of Trump advisers and acolytes is telling.
While a few brave souls among them contend that he prevailed, the rest are alleging that the two ABC moderators were palpably biased, which meant that this was an unfair, three-on-one fight, or are loudly claiming that the clash won’t make any difference to the dynamics of the campaign. Some consideration of the merits of these two hypotheses shortly, but the truth is that this was a good night for Vice President Harris and a bad night for former President Trump.
A worthy starting point is trying to ascertain if the latter had any strong moments. A standout was in his closing statement when he enquired why his opponent, who announced several policies she intends to implement if she wins and reiterated that the country needs to “turn the page”, did nothing to address any of these problems she has identified during the past three and a half years.
It’s a valid question that plays into the broadly adverse view shared by many Americans of Joe Biden and his deputy’s track record since 2021 – but Trump then lapsed into a horrendously negative, deeply foreboding description of the United States as a failed nation. It was further proof of perhaps his most damaging compound flaw as a politician: he invariably talks specifically to the disciples who flock to his rallies and he seems to believe they are numerous enough to propel him back to the White House on their own. Such brutalist messaging just won’t move enough hearts and minds of those whose votes are still up for grabs in his direction.
He ranted and rambled throughout; he veered drastically to the topic of student loans when asked about abortion. He refused to acknowledge that he lost in 2020 and even raised the debunked rumour that illegal immigrants are eating household pets in Ohio. That he was so totally undisciplined blunted the impact of his criticisms of Harris on inflation, immigration and her being too far to the left to lead.
Immigration was the subject he kept reverting to, yet much of what he said was utterly hyperbolic. He had a few decent lines on inflation and the skyrocketing cost of living that is afflicting countless struggling individuals and families, as well as on the practice of fracking, which is important to the crucial state of Pennsylvania and on which Harris has done a u-turn.
On the culture wars, Trump was so inarticulate and meandering that his attempts to paint Harris as an extremist were ineffectual. On abortion, instead of establishing that the reversal of Roe v Wade gives the people and the local representatives they send to office – rather than largely unaccountable judges – the opportunity to make laws on a complex issue that has divided the US, he muttered incoherently.
Harris shone in this portion of the debate. She wisely cited the exceptionally difficult cases and the fact that she would always champion the right of women to make their own choices. She equally shrewdly declined to respond when Trump questioned whether she would accept late-term restrictions on the procedure. She was aided greatly in this regard when the Republican nominee asserted, quite ludicrously, that many Democrats would authorise abortion post birth, something which does not actually exist.
Harris was also smart to outline concrete proposals to help first-time homebuyers, small businesswomen and men and all who find the price of gas and groceries extortionate. Placing these items at the top of her agenda won’t do her any harm in Middle America and especially will resonate with working class whites, with whom Trump is very popular, but for whom he has actually delivered little.
Although foreign policy only featured briefly and neither candidate’s statements about Israel and Gaza will find favour in Ireland, Harris was serious and realistic. Trump was glib and fantastical – essentially saying that none of this “bad stuff” would have happened if he were commander-in-chief and will end immediately after he takes up the job again.
Environmental activists will be dismayed that climate change got nary a mention and that the candidate they hope triumphs spoke more about her plans to restore manufacturing in the US than combatting an existential threat to humankind when it came up. The relegation, or arguably denigration, of what transpires beyond America’s borders and of climate chaos reflects a transatlantic attitudinal gulf as to what matters most.
All in all, Kamala Harris won, easily. Why did Trump, an experienced presidential debater, fare so poorly? In short, she got under his skin. Trump has been flailing since she supplanted President Biden, who he was very comfortable competing with. By marching up to him and extending her hand, by challenging crowd sizes at his fabled gatherings and by drawing attention to his myriad legal troubles, Harris knocked the bombastic New Yorker off his game.
To revisit the retorts of Trump adherents, the failure, for example, of the moderators to follow up on her wholly evasive answer when pushed to explain her multiple flip-flops on a wide array of issues lends some credence to their charges of partiality toward Harris. As for the extent to which she might now benefit, aggregated polling data in the next week or so will be fascinating. My suspicion is that she will get a slight boost in the key battlegrounds.
There is likely to be another high stakes encounter between the two. On that occasion, the pressure will be on Trump. And he probably will be better. Team Harris/Walz can breathe a sigh of relief today, but they must remain cognisant that there is a distance to go until 5 November.
Hot on the heels of this debate, however, the Democratic ticket has the advantage. And don’t underestimate the significance of a concurrent endorsement from the adored megastar, Taylor Swift. In a close race, her massive influence over a generally apolitical cohort of citizens could be decisive.
Larry Donnelly is a Boston lawyer, a law lecturer at the University of Galway and a political columnist with The Journal
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
have your say