The highly anticipated debate between US Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump took place in Philadelphia, marking their first confrontation in the 2024 US presidential election. The 90-minute exchange was filled with personal attacks, with little focus on detailed policy discussions. Trump repeatedly accused Harris of pursuing far-left policies, such as open borders and gun confiscation, and attempted to tie her closely to President Joe Biden’s record. He also made unverified claims about immigration, falsely suggesting that refugees in Ohio were eating people’s pets.
Harris, in response, questioned Trump’s leadership ability, calling him a “disgrace” and highlighting his failures in office. She pushed back against his exaggerated claims about her political stance, particularly on guns, the police, and healthcare. Harris also highlighted Trump’s controversial relationship with authoritarian leaders and accused him of being easily manipulated by dictators.
When it came to key issues like Gaza and Ukraine, Harris backed continued support for Israel and Ukraine, while Trump criticised current US foreign policy and claimed that such conflicts wouldn’t exist if he were president. Both candidates stuck to familiar talking points, revealing significant ideological differences on foreign policy and domestic issues.
The Good:
- Debate brings key issues into focus: The debate highlighted several key issues important to voters, including immigration, healthcare, gun control, and foreign policy. By confronting each other on these matters, Harris and Trump presented distinct policy differences, giving voters a clearer picture of where each candidate stands.
- Harris’ composure under pressure: Throughout the debate, Harris remained composed, delivering her arguments confidently and making her case for leadership in the 2024 election. Her ability to remain calm while responding to Trump’s criticisms suggests she can handle the pressures of high-stakes political contests, a reassuring sign for her supporters.
- Strong leadership messages: Harris’ emphasis on the need for strong, moral leadership in foreign policy, particularly regarding Ukraine and Gaza, reinforced the idea that she stands for international cooperation. Her call for continued support for Israel’s self-defence and Ukraine’s resistance against Russian aggression highlights her commitment to global security.
- Engaging independent voters: By highlighting Trump’s erratic behaviour and his controversial alliances with autocratic leaders, Harris may have appealed to independent voters who are wary of Trump’s unconventional leadership style. This debate could play a pivotal role in swaying undecided voters.
- Potential voter clarity: The back-and-forth between the candidates on critical issues like healthcare and immigration may help undecided voters better understand each candidate’s stance. Trump’s attempts to paint Harris as far-left and Harris’ rebuttals clarifying her more moderate positions will allow voters to gauge the policies that align more with their own views.
The Bad:
- Lack of policy depth: Despite covering important topics, the debate was notably light on substantial policy discussions. Both candidates spent more time attacking each other’s character and past record rather than delving into concrete policy solutions. This left many voters without a clear sense of how either candidate plans to address major challenges facing the country.
- Disinformation and unsubstantiated claims: Trump’s repeated falsehoods, particularly regarding immigration and refugees, raised concerns about the spread of disinformation during the debate. His claim that refugees in Ohio were eating pets, a statement quickly debunked by city officials, adds to the growing challenge of combating false narratives in US politics.
- Trump’s erratic performance: Trump’s performance was marked by a lack of focus, with his responses often veering off-topic and into unrelated issues. His inability to stay on message may raise concerns among voters about his ability to lead effectively if re-elected. This scattershot approach could alienate some supporters, particularly those seeking a more disciplined, policy-driven candidate.
- Missed opportunity for unity: The debate was highly adversarial, with little attempt from either side to bridge the political divide in the US. Instead of using the platform to unite voters around common goals, both candidates focused on tearing each other down. This may reinforce the country’s deepening political polarisation.
- Foreign policy confusion: Trump’s foreign policy remarks, especially on Gaza and Ukraine, raised eyebrows. His assertion that conflicts like the war in Ukraine wouldn’t exist if he were president comes off as an oversimplification. Additionally, his inaccurate claim about the Biden administration lifting sanctions against Iran further muddied the waters on foreign affairs.
The Take:
The first debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump ahead of the 2024 US presidential election was marked by an unusually high level of personal attacks, with both candidates attempting to undermine each other’s leadership credentials. It was a classic display of the sharp political divide that currently defines American politics, particularly when it comes to the Republican and Democratic front-runners.
Trump, well-known for his combative debate style, focused heavily on portraying Harris as an extreme left-wing candidate. His accusations ranged from claiming she supports open borders to falsely stating she wants to confiscate Americans’ guns. He also linked her closely to President Joe Biden, using his administration’s policies as ammunition to suggest that a Harris presidency would be more of the same. Throughout the debate, Trump repeatedly returned to the topic of immigration, often straying from the questions at hand to insert unsubstantiated claims about refugees and crime. One of his more egregious allegations involved a debunked claim that Haitian refugees in Springfield, Ohio, were eating people’s pets, a remark quickly refuted by local officials.
Despite his aggressive approach, Trump’s performance appeared scattered and lacked coherence. His responses frequently drifted from one topic to another without clear focus. While this style has long been a staple of his public persona, it risked alienating voters looking for clear policy directions amidst the flurry of personal jabs.
Kamala Harris, on the other hand, seemed more calculated in her approach. She spent much of her time attacking Trump’s leadership, calling him a “disgrace” multiple times. Harris also used the opportunity to remind viewers of Trump’s tumultuous time in office, focusing on the turnover of key staff members and the numerous Republican figures who have since distanced themselves from him. She painted a picture of Trump as a weak and easily manipulated leader, particularly in his dealings with authoritarian figures like Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Foreign policy proved to be one of the few areas where substantial disagreement between the two candidates emerged. On the subject of Gaza, Harris advocated for a ceasefire, continued support for Israel, and a commitment to a two-state solution, balancing the country’s right to defend itself with the human cost of the conflict. Trump, meanwhile, repeated his assertion that the war in Gaza, as well as the conflict in Ukraine, would not have escalated if he were president. He took a more critical stance towards Harris, claiming she harboured biases against both Israel and the Arab population. His remarks, particularly regarding Israel, were often exaggerated or outright incorrect, as he accused the Biden administration of lifting sanctions on Iran – a claim that has no factual basis.
When it came to Ukraine, the divide between the candidates was equally pronounced. Harris stressed the importance of continuing to support Ukraine in its fight against Russian aggression, positioning the US as a steadfast ally in the face of international threats. Trump, by contrast, argued for a quick end to the conflict through negotiations, suggesting that current US leadership had failed to prevent the invasion. His reluctance to fully commit to aiding Ukraine reflects growing scepticism among Republican voters about the benefits of continued involvement in the war.
Ultimately, this debate likely reinforced existing opinions rather than swaying undecided voters. Trump’s base may have appreciated his characteristic bluster, while Harris’ supporters likely found her attacks on Trump’s leadership compelling. However, for voters looking for detailed policy proposals, the debate fell short. It served more as a reminder of the deep ideological chasm between the two candidates, with each firmly rooted in their respective political identities.
