The presidential debate between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris last week marked a defining moment in the 2024 election cycle. With more than 67 million viewers tuning in, the debate proved that the stakes are higher than ever. For Trump, the debate offered a crucial opportunity to reaffirm his leadership credentials following a tumultuous presidency and to build momentum in his bid for a second term. For Harris, it was an opportunity to establish herself as a worthy successor to President Joe Biden, proving her capability as a national leader with a vision distinct from her predecessors.
Held at the historic National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, the debate unfolded as a true litmus test for both candidates in their ability to sway a sharply divided electorate. The exchanges were fiery, with sharp jabs and rhetoric from both sides. Harris delivered a pointed performance, repeatedly framing Trump’s leadership as “weak and wrong,” a strategic line aimed at reinforcing the Democratic narrative that his presidency failed on critical issues such as economic management and foreign policy.
Harris: Commanding Presence but Limited Gains
Harris’ debate performance was widely seen as commanding. Her ability to stay poised under pressure and navigate complex policy discussions won her praise from political pundits and Democratic loyalists alike. Post-debate polls suggested that 63% of viewers felt she had won the debate, while Trump’s performance was viewed more skeptically by the majority of viewers.
However, despite her strong showing, there was a crucial reality that became apparent: the debate did little to sway voter loyalties. Only 4% of those who watched reported changing their minds on who they would vote for as a result. This underscored the extent to which partisanship has become deeply entrenched in the American political landscape. In a polarized era, winning a debate is no longer synonymous with gaining electoral momentum.
For Harris, the challenge extends beyond simply out-performing her opponent in a televised debate. While she may have delivered sharp critiques of Trump’s record, the real test is whether she can convert her rhetorical victory into actual votes, particularly in swing states where margins are razor-thin. Despite her advantage in the debate, voter sentiment appears largely locked in, leaving the ultimate outcome of the election in battleground states uncertain.
Trump: A Familiar Strategy of Appeal to the Base
While Harris employed a more conventional debate strategy, emphasizing preparation and policy critiques, Trump’s approach was more unpredictable. As in previous campaigns, he focused on broader themes that have long resonated with his core supporters: immigration, national security, and economic recovery. His strategy was less about rehearsed responses and more about tapping into the anxieties and frustrations of his voter base, particularly in key swing states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
In these states, Trump consistently outpolls Harris on issues like the economy and security. This advantage was apparent in his debate performance, where he aimed to draw a sharp contrast between his own leadership style—brash and unapologetic—and Harris’ more polished demeanor. Trump’s message centered on the idea that he is the candidate who gets things done, pointing to his pre-pandemic economic record and his handling of international affairs as proof of his leadership skills. He downplayed Harris’ critiques, portraying her as inexperienced and out of touch with the needs of ordinary Americans.
But as much as Trump’s base continues to support him, his unpredictability remains a double-edged sword. His refusal to stick to established debate norms, coupled with frequent digressions and confrontational style, risked alienating undecided voters, many of whom are wary of further political chaos after his first term.
Moderators: Media Bias and Selective Fact-Checking
Beyond the candidates’ performances, the debate also brought attention to the role of the moderators and their handling of fact-checking. Trump was repeatedly fact-checked during the debate, often in real-time. However, many of Harris’ more questionable statements were left unaddressed. One significant moment involved Harris’ comments about Trump’s response to the 2017 Charlottesville protests, which she inaccurately framed. Despite her misrepresentation, the moderators did not intervene to correct the record, leaving Trump supporters to claim that the debate was skewed by media bias.
This perceived imbalance in treatment further fueled distrust among Trump’s base, many of whom believe that the media is fundamentally biased against their candidate. For these voters, the debate was not just a contest between Trump and Harris, but also between Trump and an entrenched political establishment they view as aligned against him.
The issue of selective fact-checking raises broader questions about the media’s role in shaping public perception in an era of dwindling trust in institutions. In a highly polarized political environment, even small discrepancies in how candidates are treated can have significant consequences, reinforcing narratives of bias and unfairness.
Harris: Promises and Policy Paradoxes
A central paradox emerged during the debate regarding Harris’ current role as vice president. Throughout the debate, Harris framed herself as a leader ready to bring fresh ideas and new leadership to the White House. However, Trump repeatedly pointed out that she is already in a position of significant power. As vice president, Harris has had four years to influence major policy decisions, from immigration reform to economic recovery. Yet, many of the issues she pledged to address remain unresolved.
This critique exposed a potential vulnerability in Harris’ campaign. While she may claim to represent a break from the past, her current position complicates that message. If she is as capable of delivering change as she suggests, then why have those changes not already been made? Trump was quick to capitalize on this point, questioning her credibility and portraying her policy proposals as hollow promises.
Substance vs. Style: Debate Format’s Limitations
The dynamic between Trump and Harris also highlighted the shortcomings of modern debate formats, which tend to prioritize style over substance. Both candidates, while sharp in their rhetoric, often avoided deeper discussions on policy. The debate offered little insight into the specifics of their future plans for critical issues like healthcare, economic recovery, and foreign policy.
This lack of substantive discussion has long been a criticism of presidential debates, where candidates are often rewarded for memorable soundbites rather than detailed policy proposals. Voters are left with more questions than answers about how each candidate plans to address the country’s most pressing challenges. With so much at stake in this election, the absence of meaningful policy debate is a disservice to the electorate.
Issues Left Undiscussed: Black Lives Matter and Trump’s Assassination Attempt
Another glaring omission from the debate was the failure to address some of the most significant recent events in American politics. Neither candidate discussed the assassination attempt on Trump, a topic that would have been crucial in assessing the security challenges facing the country. Similarly, Harris’ position on the Black Lives Matter protests in 2020, a pivotal moment during the Biden administration, was left untouched. These omissions reflect a broader issue with the debate format, where moderators often shy away from potentially controversial topics in favor of more conventional political talking points.
As the debate fades into the rearview mirror, the 2024 election remains a tight contest. Polls indicate that the race is still too close to call, particularly in critical battleground states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. These states, which played decisive roles in the 2016 and 2020 elections, will likely once again determine the outcome of the 2024 race.
Despite Harris’ strong debate performance, the electoral map remains precariously balanced. Both candidates have viable paths to victory, and with voter loyalties remaining largely unmoved by the debate, the outcome will likely hinge on voter turnout and last-minute persuasion efforts in key states.
Ultimately, the impact of last week’s debate may not become fully apparent until election day, when voters will cast their ballots based not only on policy but on the candidates’ overall demeanor and tone. History has shown that voters may forget the specifics of what is said during a debate, but they will always remember how a candidate made them feel.
For Harris and Trump, the legacy of this debate will be shaped not just by the words they used but by how effectively they communicated their vision for the future of the country. Yet, as the nation reflects on the debate, one conclusion is clear: a second debate is necessary. Although Trump has reportedly ruled out another debate, the American people deserve a more in-depth conversation on the critical issues facing the nation. A more focused, policy-driven debate would allow both candidates to clarify their positions, offering voters the opportunity to make an informed choice in what may be one of the most consequential elections in U.S. history.
The debate was an entertaining spectacle, but the real question is whether it will meaningfully impact the race ahead. Both candidates face an uphill battle in a divided nation, where every word, every policy promise, and every voter counts.
