Harris Won the Debate. Now What?

Al-Ittihad, UAE, September 12

Kamala Harris clinched a pivotal victory in the debate against Donald Trump last week. Remarkably, even some of Trump’s staunchest supporters conceded that their candidate performed poorly. As we ponder whether another debate will take place, the implications for Harris’ polling numbers are yet to become clear. The answer, however, should reveal itself shortly. Harris faced an uphill battle on debate night. Unlike Trump, who has been a fixture in national debates since 2016, Harris had to introduce herself to a broader American audience and meet three critical benchmarks. First, she needed to demonstrate her competence in leading the country and acting as commander-in-chief, addressing issues such as economic policy, national security, and immigration control. Second, she had to prove she could stand up to Trump, known for his aggressive tactics against opponents, particularly women. Third, she needed to carve out her own identity, distinct from the Biden Administration, while still offering a fresh, youthful vision to an electorate weary of “old white men.” Immediate reactions to Harris’ performance indicate she met these challenges head-on. She refused to let Trump intimidate her. Instead, she took the offensive, challenging and mocking his statements, some of which were so outrageous that her mere expressions sufficed to undermine them. A striking example of this was Trump’s baseless claim that illegal immigrants from Haiti are kidnapping, killing, and eating their neighbors’ cats and dogs. Observers are curious about how Harris will navigate complex foreign policy issues, such as the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, and relationships with international leaders. Here too, Trump appeared to fall into Harris’ well-laid trap. She candidly addressed Ukraine, asserting that the US and its allies are committed to Ukraine’s victory over Russia. In contrast, Trump dodged the question, claiming he could end the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza “overnight,” even before taking office in January 2025. On the delicate matter of Israel-Palestine relations, Harris struck a careful balance to avoid alienating either side, while Trump recklessly accused her of “hating Israel” and predicted Israel’s demise under her presidency within two years. Harris’ meticulous preparation was evident, successfully provoking Trump into angry outbursts, particularly when she ridiculed the size of his campaign rallies, his role in the January 6 Capitol attack, and his inconsistent claims of the US being a failed state on the brink of World War III. With election day still weeks away, and early voting already beginning in some states, both campaigns will zero in on swing voters in key battleground states. The next fortnight will be crucial in determining whether the debate will shift the race’s dynamics. If either side perceives a downward trend in their poll standings, they might push for a second debate. The Republicans hope their candidate can improve his performance, while Harris’ team may prefer to avoid another face-off unless they are supremely confident of replicating their success from September 10. A significant development in the US economy or an international crisis might compel them to revisit their strategies. Absent such events, the Harris campaign will likely continue to leverage debate footage as a strategic propaganda tool, aiming to portray Trump as increasingly old and irritable to the electorate. —Geoffrey Kemp (translated by Asaf Zilberfarb)