After some wrangling between the two candidates’ camps, it was decided that former US president Donald Trump and current Vice President Kamala Harris, the Republican and Democratic Party candidates in November’s US presidential elections, would square off in Philadelphia, a key swing state, on 10 September in what was expected to be the only debate between the two candidates.

It was also the first time that Harris and Trump had come face-to-face, as they had never met each other before.

It was learned from the June debate between current US President Joe Biden, formerly the Democratic Party candidate, and Trump that a debate can change the course of a race and that every word uttered or not uttered matters, along with every facial expression.

Hence, the stakes were high for both candidates in the 10 September debate, and they and their teams were aware of the full gravity of this crucial event. The candidates were coming into the debate neck and neck, so it could also have been a decisive factor in winning the overall race.

While I do not believe that any debate can alter the minds of already decided voters, it can be an exceptional opportunity to convince the undecided. Hence, both candidates diligently prepped for it with their teams, though when the rubber hit the road Trump and Harris were on their own in front of the cameras facing an audience of millions and required to capitalise on the 90 minutes of the debate to the best of their abilities.

Harris has been in the race for a little over a month, and viewers are curious about her, so one of her aims in the debate was to define herself more to voters. She would also have been preparing to explain to voters what she would do if she was elected the next US president, whether domestically, regarding border security, immigration, and the economy, or internationally, since so much horror is happening around the world.

She would have had the most to lose if she had been unable to perform, and she would also have had the most to win in order to achieve her goals. In prepping for the debate, she must also have acknowledged that she might be attacked and see her stories falsified. She had shrugged off Trump’s blatant onslaughts earlier but confronting him during a debate would be a different ballgame altogether.

Trump would need to have prepared to answer questions on abortion rights, gun control, and the economy in the debate. He came out the winner after the previous debate with Biden, but on 10 September he would have been seeking to regain his footing after Harris’ entry into the race erased his lead.

Trump would also need to follow debate ethics. The challenge for Trump would have been not to cross the line into scorn or disdain. Harris is a non-white woman, and any play on this would hinder his chances to win the debate.

When the debate came on the evening of 10 September, there were some 57 million US television viewers watching to validate or refute either opponent. As the two candidates came onto the stage, Harris walked up to Trump’s podium, introduced herself, and shook his hand. Trump was slightly taken aback since whatever he murmured in reply was inaudible.

Throughout the debate, the mics were muted to limit each candidate’s ability to interrupt. In any case, both Trump and Harris stuck to the rules and critiqued their opponent only via facial expressions and smirks. Only once did Harris voice a remark, and Trump immediately rebuked her by saying “wait a minute, I’m talking now. You don’t mind?”

The two moderators were respectful and knowledgeable, and they maintained order. They also asked tough questions that were in sync with what the viewers would have wanted to know.

When Trump came up with a false or misleading statement regarding migrants or the Democrat stance on abortion, the moderators fact-checked him. In all fairness, they did not fact-check Harris once, though she did make some misleading statements. The moderators are doing voters a disservice, if they do not contradict any lies or misleading statements made by the debaters.

After the debate, Trump’s team expressed their frustration. “Weird how the hack moderators… are only ‘fact-checking’ Trump and allowing Kamala to lie nonstop. The fake news is the enemy of the people,” said Donald Trump Jr.

Now we come to the debaters themselves. Harris seemed at ease and focused. She conducted herself with precision throughout and spoke directly to the viewers, though she also often addressed Trump.

Though Harris avoided responding to the question of whether Americans are better off today than they were during Trump’s presidency, she presented her vision on economic policy and tax refunds for small-business owners. She was able to show voters how she would lead by promising to build an “opportunity economy” that would support young families with tax credits and support the middle classes.

Trump rarely looked at Harris during the debate, preferring to look straight ahead. He was on the defensive, with most of his responses intended to rebut Harris’ statements, so instead of speaking on his plans and platform, he merely tried to shield himself from her accusations.

Indeed, Harris baited Trump, and he fell for it. She ambushed him regarding abortion rights, the 6 January attack on Capitol Hill, and democracy, referring to the three US Supreme Court members he appointed. She triggered his anger by asking why the crowds left his rallies early.

Trump spoke well on the disastrous US withdrawal from Afghanistan during the Biden administration, but Harris turned the tables on him by referring to his inviting the Taliban to the White House. He also spoke well on inflation and how prices have skyrocketed, though he did not speak about how he would address the inflation issue.

Trump spoke of restoring the glory of the past. Harris focused on the future. “What I do offer is a new generation of leadership for our country,” she said, referencing the age difference between them.

Though Harris said the conflict in Gaza started on 7 October last year, she vowed to continue supporting Israel’s “right to self-defence” while also pushing for a ceasefire, the return of the hostages, and a two-state solution. Trump claimed that Harris “hates Israel” and said that “she wouldn’t even meet with [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu when he went to Congress to make a very important speech.”

He added that she “hates the Arab population,” all without saying how he would try to end the conflict if he were elected president.

According to analysts, Trump lied or embellished many times during the debate. One such moment came when he spoke of bizarre claims that immigrants are eating pets in the US state of Ohio. “In Springfield, they’re eating the dogs, the people that came in, they’re eating the cats. They’re eating the pets of the people that live there. And this is what’s happening in our country,” he said.

But Harris said that Trump had “left us the worst unemployment since the Great Depression.” While it is true that unemployment in the US spiked due to the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020 while Trump was in office, by the end of the year it had fallen to 6.4 per cent, which was still high but well below recession numbers.  

Both candidates celebrated their performance and considered themselves to be the winner. However, the US TV news channel CNN came up with the result hours after the debate: 63 per cent of debate watchers believed that Harris won the debate.

Harris gained more than she lost, leaving Trump doubtful as to whether he would debate her again, but even so he claimed he had won the debate “by a lot.” He also said that “I thought that was my best debate, ever, especially since it was three on one,” a reference to his belief that the moderators had ganged up on him with Harris.

The vast majority of people who watched the debate said it had not affected their original choice of who to vote for in November’s US elections. It is the voters who will decide what to do with what they took away from the debate. This leaves us in a very tight race that will not be decided before November.

 

The writer is a former professor of communication who is based in Vancouver, Canada.

* A version of this article appears in print in the 19 September, 2024 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly