On September 10, 2024, the political climate intensified as Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump faced off in their first and potentially only debate before the upcoming presidential election. Political analysts and viewers alike were left buzzing as the encounter unfolded, with many declaring Harris the victor, not necessarily due to her performance alone, but also because of Trump's missteps and incoherent rants.
A CNN poll following the debate showed Harris leading with 63% of viewers believing she outperformed Trump, against his 37%. Similarly, YouGov reported her winning by 43% to 28% among registered voters. Even commentators from conservative outlets like Fox News conceded to her success, marking the debate as pivotal as both candidates jockey for the attention of undecided voters.
While Harris's confident demeanor shone through, her win wasn't without scrutiny. Observers noted her skillful tactics of baiting Trump by challenging his notorious statements and claims, which seemed to rattle him throughout the encounter. Harris managed to keep him on the defensive, with moderators fact-checking his often wild assertions, putting him on the back foot.
Remarkably, her performance even found support from unexpected quarters, as pop star Taylor Swift threw her endorsement Harris's way right after the debate. Despite this, many experts urge caution; post-debate polls focusing on undecided voters are yet to surface, and doubts linger over how much the debate will influence overall voter sentiment.
“There's no doubt Harris knew which buttons to press,” said Tomeka M. Robinson, a rhetoric professor who weighed in on the debate. “She managed to deliberately push Trump out of his comfort zone, causing him to resort to familiar but dangerous rhetoric about immigration and other hot-button issues.” Robinson acknowledged, though, the downside of this strategy—by pushing Trump, Harris didn't effectively lay out substantial details of her own policies, which may leave some voters wanting.
Harris's approach seemed almost prosecutorial, which added to her confidence but left her policies somewhat shrouded. David A. Frank, another professor weighing on the debate, remarked, "Harris chose to put Trump on trial, focusing more on his character than outlining her plans effectively. That’s commendable but undermined her role as the candidate detailing why she should be elected. It reflected less on policy and more on performance.”
Professor Tammy R. Vigil echoed similar sentiments, praising Harris for exploiting Trump’s weaknesses but lamenting her lack of policy specificity. “The debate showcased her skill as she understood what strings to pull to reveal Trump’s vulnerabilities. But this didn’t translate to outlining her vision, which could be detrimental when it matters most to voters,” she added.
For Trump, the debate can largely be viewed as disastrous by the standards of his prior performances. His demeanor fluctuated between anger and confusion, marking stark contrasts with his usually mobilized and composed demeanor against Biden earlier this year. Nick Beauchamp from Northeastern University observed how Harris's continuous provocations throughout the event pushed Trump to lose control, leading to disjointed and sometimes incoherent diatribes.
One could argue, though, was Harris's strategy effective? She managed to unsettle Trump, yes. Yet it became clear she didn't take the opportunity to fully define herself or her platform to potential voters, opting instead to react—sometimes vigorously—to Trump's outlandish behavior. An interesting dynamic had formed, where Harris’s performance was applauded, but the public good was questioned: Did voters truly gain any insight on the candidates standing before them?
Political experts like Steven Fein from Williams College cautioned observers against simply handing victory to Harris. The reality is Trump has shown remarkable resilience to past controversies—often weathering storms of criticism without visible damage to his following. “While fact-checkers pointed out numerous errors and fabrications from Trump, the precedent shows these blunders hardly faze him or his supporters,” said Fein.
Despite numerous outlandish statements made during the debate—claims of migrant pets and conspiracies stretching credulity—some argue Trump remains unfazed, indicating the potential for significant voter apathy. “No claim was disqualifying for him, and part of the challenge for entertainment-driven debates is voters tend to see neither candidate nailed down specific policy roads,” added Fein.
For what can be tagged as political theater, the debate fell short of informing the electorate deeply about pressing issues facing the country. Professor James M. Farrell highlighted disturbing trends: “Should these be scored logically as academic debates, judges would have grounds to rule both fell short on substance—the many dubious claims made, particularly from Trump, indicated more emphasis on character assault than meaningful exchanges.”
Farrell’s assertion resonates with many thinking voters tired of headlines filled with incendiary rhetoric instead of electoral plans. Raising questions about clear pathways to American recovery amid rising economic challenges, Americans were left wondering who offers clear solutions rather than attacks laced with baseless claims.
Popular commentators similarly lamented the lack of real debate over policies. Observers argued due to the wavering focus, the debate ’degenerated’—from topics grounded in domestic policies like healthcare and immigration to personal feuds and distracting narratives. Nicole Russell from USA Today pointedly noted, "each side failed to articulate compelling policies, leading to the verdict of defeat against America’s needs rather than the candidates themselves.”
Adding to the discourse, debates earlier this year saw Trump criticized for his combative nature against Biden, leading many political analysts to predict how this debate’s aftermath could morph the race for 2024. The tough environment may not firmly pivot with one debate translating to polls, officials encouraged citizens to heed the fluctuations as Harris’s recent surge seeks sustainability against Trump’s already loyal base ready with conflicting narratives.
While some issues became hotly debated, others seemed to dissolve, highlighting voters’ latent concerns about immigration, healthcare, and economic fears presented against the backdrop of rising inflation clashing with incendiary conversations. Even as pundits awaited results on poll performances post-debate, talk shifted to how and if these encounters shape the electoral mindset as November looms closely.
With six toss-up states on the radar, the debate took on increased importance as it showcased each candidate's ability to connect—or fail to connect—with voters amid multiple elections. Polling will likely reveal nuanced impacts over the next few weeks as the race to the top heats up between the two effectively humbled candidates who now need to convince undecided voters of alternative visions.
Yet, what is here to grapple with: For both Harris and Trump, what will be the ultimate price paid for this performance and how does the spotlight on debate lead to broader shifts heading directly toward the election?
This forces future candidate strategies and cites what was learned from this raucous encounter—votes hinged not only on personality impressions but actual policies set out alongside their shepherding narratives. Critical questions timely challenge both Harris and Trump as they stand at the crossroads of American political discourse, vying for hearts and minds within what will define not only this battle but the campaign as candidates gaze directly toward the looming outcome—the genuine test of civility and shared democratic engagement.
