How Harris outplayed Trump in the US presidential debate

Look, I’m not an American. I can’t vote in the upcoming presidential election. I can’t even meaningfully support either side: I donated to the Obama campaign in 2008, and a year later the money was refunded to me by check in the mail (apparently because of campaign finance rules).

I’m not a fan of either candidate. On two key issues that matter to me – climate change and Israel-Gaza – their positions are equally terrible.

But the United States’ influence on the world is so vast and far-reaching and often damaging that it would be foolish for any activist to ignore it. And hey, the debate offers a high-level master class in the do’s and don’ts of political communication. Here’s my take on it.

What I saw surprised me. Kamala Harris started off shaky – nervous, dry-mouthed, hesitant. But she grew into the role. And while she’s no Obama, her subsequent performance was, if I may say so, impressive.

Donald TrumpHe didn’t adjust! He seemed unprepared. Or rather, he was only prepared to pull out his usual campaign arguments: attack his opponent’s record, bolster his own, paint a gloomy picture. It was the classic strongman’s spiel: the world is a mess and I’m the man to put it right.

But the real reason Harris defeated Trump was a clever tactical move on her part.

Let me go back again. Independent, undecided voters were the real audience here, as many analyses suggest. And that audience needed to hear plans: “Here you will find out what I will do for you and how.’ (Yes, there had to be some witty remarks and conversation thrown in – debates are a cage fight, a political sporting event. But still, plans!)

So one way for Harris to dominate the debate was to get Trump to take full advantage of her speaking time, defending his honor and his record rather than talking about substance. Getting him to fixate on the past rather than the future. And that’s exactly what she did, with a series of statements designed to provoke him, such as her claim that “world leaders are laughing at Donald Trump” and that “people are starting to leave his rallies early out of exhaustion and boredom.”

It was an obvious ploy; it wasn’t particularly well executed. But it worked. Like a cat chasing a laser pointer, Trump lapsed into self-defense. Plans? What plans? When the moderator pressed him to say what he would do about health care reform, he provided the courage for a thousand Harris campaign ads by weakly responding, “I have the concepts of a plan.” It was devastating.

Harris did get help, though – from Trump. The former president missed the chance to attack Harris on issues where she was exposed. In particular, he could have sharply criticized her vigorous defense of Biden after the last debate – because the current president has long since lost control of his abilities, not to mention the country. But Trump only mentioned this in passing and it didn’t go down well.

Sure, Harris wasn’t always on good form. There were a few lies, a few arguments that homework-shy Democratic speechwriters still pick up. She claimed that Trump failed to condemn white supremacists in his 2017 comments (which he did), that police officers died in the Jan. 6 riots (which he didn’t), and that Trump will implement the right-wing Project 2025 government blueprint (which he has repeatedly denied). But even when she was fibbing, Harris got away with it; moderators were happy to fact-check Trump’s statements, but much less so with her. (There’s something to be said for agreeing to a debate on a friendly TV network.)

Visually, she wasn’t great either. The debate was broadcast mostly on split screen, and her reactions were stylized and over-rehearsed, her scowls and scolding expressions to Trump’s answers seemed too harsh to be genuine. But here, too, Trump didn’t do well. He spent much of his screen time staring down or into the camera, hunched over and frowning, barely glancing at Harris. It made him look old and her dynamic by comparison.

In summary: Whatever you think of the views of these two candidates, Harris won. She tactically cornered Trump and successfully portrayed herself as a candidate of hope, ideas and progress. He, on the other hand, relied on personal attacks and a gloomy view of the country’s future. An uplifter rather than a put-downer. Trump lost this time, and the betting markets agree.

After the debate, two things are noteworthy:

• Many Republican voices on social media are criticizing ABC’s anchors as biased. Whether they’re right or not, this is usually a sign that their candidate performed poorly.
• Harris’ campaign is not boasting about the allegations; they just sent out a newsletter stressing that debates don’t win elections and urging their supporters to get back to campaigning. It was a perfect continuation of a campaign that is, at least for now, still in top form.

This article first appeared on Subvrt Activism Newsletter

Would you like to be informed about DiEM25’s actions? Sign up here.