The Conversation, AAP
by Emma Shortis, RMIT University; Jared Mondschein, University of Sydney, and Matthew Ricketson, Deakin University
Judging debates usually comes down to picking a winner or loser.
Seeking a more nuanced approach to the first presidential debate between Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Kamala Harris, we asked our experts in US politics, history and the media to weigh in on four points: overall performance, policy strength, truthfulness and omissions, and the most memorable moments. Here’s how they saw Tuesday’s performances.
You can also watch the whole debate below.
“How can we compare lies like the claim that people are eating pets to a regular political omission about a policy detail? We can’t, and we shouldn’t.”
– Emma Shortis
“The way Harris walked over to Trump to shake his hand – entering his space instead of meeting in between the podiums – was a physical demonstration of what she planned to do during the debate.”
– Jared Mondschein
“Trump resisted a couple of Harris barbs until she snared him hook, line and sinker with a seemingly casual reference to the size of his rally crowds.”
– Matthew Ricketson
Performance
Emma Shortis
If the last presidential debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden taught us anything, it’s that they can be won or lost in the first 15 seconds.
This time, Kamala Harris set the tone immediately by walking purposefully across to Trump to introduce herself, telegraphing a message that her campaign settled on from the start: Democrats are no longer afraid of Trump.
After a somewhat shaky start in her very first answer, Harris warmed up. Her use of facial expressions throughout the debate was masterful and ready-made for social media. By alternatively frowning incredulously, smiling and laughing, Harris implicitly reinforced the message that Trump and his campaign are “weird”.
Trump, for his part, hit the same, often violent, messages of American decline. As the debate progressed, he appeared to get more and more angry, raising his voice and listing his grievances. His performance was clearly an effort to mobilize his own base; he often spoke in right-wing shorthand aimed squarely at his supporters.
The stakes were higher in this debate for Harris. She walked off the debate stage with increasing confidence she can hold her own against the man who has dominated American politics for a decade.
Jared Mondschein
Coming into the debate, Kamala Harris by far had the most to lose. A recent poll from The New York Times/Siena College found nearly a third of Americans wanted to know more about her, but less than 10% wanted to know more about Donald Trump.
This is Trump’s third time leading the Republican presidential ticket – he’s not exactly an unknown quantity at this point. Most surprisingly in that poll for many, however, was that Trump actually led Harris nationally – signalling an end to the Harris momentum that had defined the race for the last few weeks.
Judging by viewer polls, Harris did not seem to lose this debate. Reinforcing this, Trump’s campaign has focused its post-debate commentary on the bias of the debate moderators.
Trump’s team appeared to have prepared him well, with pointed criticisms of the Biden administration’s record on the economy and foreign policy. Ultimately, however, he spent the majority of the night on the defensive, unable to resist being baited by Harris’ points on everything from rally crowd size to abortion.
Matthew Ricketson
Kamala Harris won overall by a good margin. A little tentative and dry-mouthed at the start, she soon drew a stark contrast between her focus on what a Harris presidency would do to support middle-class Americans’ aspirations and Trump’s now numbingly familiar ranting about problems on the southern border.
Trump appeared disciplined early and directed his lines forcefully straight to the camera. He virtually never looked at Harris, referring only to “her”. If there was a smart strategy in leaving unnamed an opponent still unknown to many Americans, Trump still does not have one of his killer nicknames for her.
He resisted a couple of Harris barbs until she snared him hook, line and sinker with a seemingly casual reference to the size of his rally crowds.
From that point, she succeeded several times in goading him into darkly swirling comments about America’s terminal decline. If this were a football match – and let’s face it, that is how so much of a presidential debate’s atmospherics are framed – you would say Harris began a fight, then once her opponent started swinging, she promptly picked up the ball and started kicking goals.
Policy
−
Emma Shortis
In the lead-up to the debate, the Harris campaign made it clear they wanted this to be about policy. And, perhaps surprisingly, it was.
There was significant focus on economic policy: on inflation, trade and the cost of living. There was also, of course, a big focus on abortion and reproductive rights.
While Trump used the same, graphically violent lines he used in the first debate against Biden, Harris was much stronger on this issue than the current president.
She was impressively across the detail of policy questions, without being sucked into fact-checking Trump or allowing him to set the terms.
Trump’s policies (if that is the right word to describe his plans) are by now very well known, so there was always more pressure on Harris to articulate her platform.
She did that well, staying on message. Unlike in her CNN interview last month, this didn’t feel like the campaign message–testing. Harris was confident, and managed to get under Trump’s skin.
Jared Mondschein
Since Harris has only conducted one major interview since becoming the Democratic nominee, the debate was an opportunity for her to give voters more insights on her policies.
It was also an opportunity for Harris to clearly articulate her more moderate stance compared to her 2019 presidential campaign platform. After all, The New York Times/Siena College polling found US voters more likely to deem Harris progressive than to deem Trump conservative.
On abortion, Harris made clear she was not going to clarify her stance on third trimester abortions, and Trump made clear he was not going to clarify his stance on whether he’d veto a national abortion ban.
Trump perhaps came prepared better than before in terms of being able to correctly posit that Roe v Wade had been criticised by even progressive judicial scholars for its weak legal foundations. But it is unlikely the considerable advantage Harris has over Trump with voters on this issue will change.
On the economy, Harris would not criticise her own administration for not doing enough to tame inflation, and Trump would not admit that tariffs on imports from abroad will effectively be a tax on US consumers of those imports.
Some outlets have already declared Harris the winner of this debate. If it was a victory for her, then it was not due to her articulating a more concrete policy agenda. She did not announce any new policies or deviate in any significant measure from her prior policies and talking points.
Matthew Ricketson
Harris had the trickier task here as she needed to simultaneously defend the policies of the Biden administration and chart her own path. She succeeded overall, at least partly because Trump was unfocused.
Overall, Trump failed to probe what opinion polls show are the Biden administration’s weaknesses – the cost of living and immigration. He at least addressed these issues in a more disciplined way in his final summation.
Trump has long been on nodding terms only with policy, and Harris made him pay for that several times with well-prosecuted arguments and well-crafted lines.
Earlier this year, Trump reportedly persuaded Republicans to vote against a bipartisan bill aimed at tightening the US-Mexico border. Harris said of this apparently cynical ploy: “He’d prefer to run on a problem than to fix a problem”.
Trump also snookered himself by disowning the notorious Project 2025 manifesto, leaving him with only a “concept of a plan” for one policy issue.
Truthfulness and omissions
−
Emma Shortis
We know Trump is a serial, egregious liar. That analysts and pundits are still being asked to rate or weigh up truthfulness and lies is quite extraordinary.
How can we compare lies like the claim that people are eating pets to a regular political omission about a policy detail? We can’t, and we shouldn’t.
Trump, as usual, lied throughout the debate. The difference with the Biden debate was this time the anchors occasionally jumped in to fact-check him. Harris also pointed out Trump’s lies without engaging in their substance.
This debate covered an awful lot of ground. The biggest omission, though, is one that plagues American politics – how would either candidate overcome a broken electoral system that won’t allow a president without a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate to make any substantial reforms?
That’s a question that, as yet, no one has an answer for. However, answering it is crucial to the stability and prosperity of the world’s most important democracy.
Jared Mondschein
There has never been more factchecking in our media, but there remains a debate as to whether factchecking makes an tangible impact.
Furthermore, it’s unclear the many factchecking articles following something as performative as a political debate will have much of an impact on perceptions of the candidates. Perhaps more impactful than perceptions of objective truthfulness will be the perceived “truths” from the debate.
Back in 2016, Hillary Clinton’s supporters thought it was an undeniable truth she won her debates against Trump because she looked more conventionally presidential and policy-centric. Trump supporters thought it was an undeniable truth that he won because he mocked the entire charade of her out-of-touch policy agenda.
One truth for Trump supporters after this debate may be that the moderators fact-checked more of his statements than Harris’. One truth for Harris supporters may be that she appeared confident and in command in an unscripted environment.
It remains unclear, however, what the truths will be for the very few truly undecided voters.
Matthew Ricketson
Trump is notoriously fact-allergic. All too often he gets away with it by dint of sheer repetition and a supine media.
In the debate, he was corrected on air by both Harris and the moderators, David Muir and Linsey Davis, on several issues, including abortion, his loss in the 2020 presidential election, and a bizarre rumour he repeated about immigrants eating dogs and cats.
For her part, Harris did appear to dodge the question about whether she had changed her position on fracking policy since 2019.
Notable on the hosts’ part was their insistence on addressing Trump as “Mr. President” when he hasn’t held that office since 2021, and repeatedly allowing Trump a further opportunity to respond to Harris’ points.
A missed opportunity from Harris came when Trump accused the US Justice Department of weaponising false charges against him. It wasn’t the Justice Department that found him guilty twice in the E. Jean Carroll case and in the Stormy Daniels hush money case. It was three juries of Trump’s peers.
Memorable moments
−
Emma Shortis
For me, it was a moment that both echoed the 2016 presidential election and showed how much American politics has changed since then.
Asked about his recent comments about Harris’ race, Trump gave the same nods to deeply ingrained racism and sexism he has long leaned into. In her response, Harris pivoted, not focusing on herself but on broader divisions that Trump did not create, but has successfully weaponized.
No moment more clearly demonstrated there are two versions of America that are, once again, pitted against each other.
Jared Mondschein
The most surprising moment to me – and what I think set the tone for the debate – was Harris’ handshake with Trump at the start. These two had never actually met before today. The way she walked over to him – entering his space instead of meeting in between the podiums – was a physical demonstration of what Harris planned to do during the debate. She succeeded on that front.
Matthew Ricketson
It was the way Harris spoke passionately about the consequences of the US Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe vs Wade. This left the audience to compare an empathetic woman imagining the suffering of other women and a man about whom writing words such as empathy is unimaginable.
Emma Shortis, Adjunct Senior Fellow, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University; Jared Mondschein, Director of Research, US Studies Centre, University of Sydney, and Matthew Ricketson, Professor of Communication, Deakin University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
About Post Author
