Views: 14
Kamala Harris and Donald Trump faced each other in a debate in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on September 10. Peter Finn reflects on the debate and what it might mean in the lead up to the November 5th presidential election.
- This article is part of ‘The 2024 Elections’ series curated by Peter Finn (Kingston University). Ahead of the 2024 election, this series is exploring US elections at the state and national level. If you are interested in contributing to the series, contact Peter Finn (p.finn@kingston.ac.uk).
Just two and a half months ago, the race for the White House was upended as current occupant Joe Biden gave a stilted, often incoherent, performance in a debate with former, and potentially future, President Donald Trump. This gave extra weight to the narrative that Biden did not have the wherewithal to complete another four years as US president. The fallout was such that less than a month later, on July 21, Biden stood down, being quickly replaced by Vice President Kamala Harris on the Democratic presidential ticket. These events provided important context for the ABC News debate between Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris on September 10 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
An important debate?
Of course a debate between the two candidates to become US president matters. Tens of millions of people within the US, and just as many (if not more) beyond, will watch at least snippets of the debate, with even more seeing coverage in the media. In this sense, the debate clearly mattered.
Moreover, using the June 27 Trump-Biden debate as a barometer would leave almost all other presidential debates lacking in terms of importance, given that the fallout led to a sitting president withdrawing himself from the race. However, this high bar aside, the first, and perhaps only, Harris-Trump debate was certainly important in the context of a truncated presidential contest between a sitting vice president and a former president, if only to flesh out the picture that US voters have of Harris and of Trump as the election approaches.
Harris plays to her strengths
In the debate, Harris was able to draw on her experience as a prosecutor and a senator to consistently critique Trump, while at the same time not necessarily always answering the questions posed.
Though there are clearly still issues that divide the Democratic Party, with splits over Israel-Palestine being one of the most visible in recent months, the performance from Harris in this debate is unlikely to have harmed her with those already leaning towards voting Democratic in November. Moreover, she probably also leaned enough into the record of the Biden administration to ensure harmony within the party itself.
Trump playbook looking tired
When Trump entered the 2016 race for the White House, he had the rhetorical power and novelty of approach to end the candidacy of powerful Republican rivals such as Jeb Bush with the deployment of well-crafted nicknames. He also had the ability to use rhetorical lines such as ‘Build that Wall’ to drive the narrative of media coverage.
However, in the debate against Harris, his playbook appeared worn. Rather than leading the narrative, he was goaded into defending the sizes of crowds at his rallies and falsely talked about pets being eaten by immigrants. The current iteration of the Republican Party is obviously Trump’s, and even if he loses in November, one presumes many of the pretenders to his throne will try to update and refresh his approach rather than reject it. Yet, whether that is a successful electoral approach nationally remains to be seen.
Independent