Trump-Harris: A Far Cry from Lincoln-Douglas

The debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential race will be remembered less for its policy substance and more for its disjointed nature, where Harris managed to come out on top. The consensus among commentators is that Harris won the second presidential debate, not due to her flawless performance, but largely because Trump faltered repeatedly. In essence, this was a debate where Harris triumphed primarily because Trump lost control of the narrative and the moment.

Harris’ poorest moment came early on. Faced with the debate’s opening question—a chance to frame the past four years under President Biden’s and her administration—she missed an opportunity to channel a rhetorical moment of history. When asked, "Are Americans better off than they were four years ago?" a clear echo of Ronald Reagan’s famous question in his 1980 debate against President Jimmy Carter, Harris diverged from the expected response. Instead of succinctly addressing the nation’s progress since the Covid pandemic heights of 2020, she ventured into a biographical account of her middle-class upbringing and rise through the ranks of American politics. While inspiring, this narrative failed to address the heart of the question posed.

For any candidate in an earlier election cycle, this might have been an unforced error of substantial consequence. Missing an opportunity to speak directly to Americans' concerns about their present wellbeing, especially amid ongoing economic frustrations, could have been considered a misstep. Yet, in 2024, the political context has shifted. The electorate, facing a complex landscape of social and political polarisation, has grown accustomed to deviations from traditional debate norms. What might have seemed like a major oversight in past elections barely registered as a major blunder in the context of this debate. It was, however, far from Harris' best moment.

Trump’s performance, on the other hand, was marked by a series of bewildering statements and awkward blunders that derailed his message. One of the most head-scratching moments came when he claimed that Springfield, Ohio, was suffering from a widespread pet-eating crisis at the behest of Haitian immigrants. It was unclear what the former president was referring to, as no such crisis has been documented or reported. This odd and baseless assertion left viewers puzzled and critics ready to pounce, as it showcased Trump’s increasingly erratic approach to the debate stage. His statements appeared to lack the grounding in reality that is typically expected from a candidate vying for the presidency.

Further compounding his difficulties, Trump made a futile attempt to tout the success of his rallies, claiming that they are the most incredible in US history and that "no one walks out of my rallies." While Trump’s rallies have often drawn fervent support from his base, this exaggerated claim did little to advance his standing with the broader electorate, who were looking for substantive answers to pressing national concerns, not boasts of crowd sizes or event enthusiasm. Instead, Trump seemed out of touch, using precious debate time to reminisce about his political past, rather than offering a coherent vision for the future.

In one of his more controversial moments, Trump tried to address previous confusion regarding Kamala Harris' racial identity. Trump has been criticised for comments that appeared to question Harris' race and heritage, but in this debate, he attempted to neutralise the issue by stating that whatever Harris wishes to identify as, is "OK with me." While this may have been intended as a concession, it came across as dismissive and tone-deaf. The issue of identity in American politics is deeply personal for many voters, and Trump's offhand remark did little to correct the damage of his past misstatements.

In contrast, Harris maintained relative composure and kept herself from laughing erratically or giving odd statements about coconut trees, which she has been known to comment on when shaken. Whether it was Trump’s ongoing criminal convictions, women’s reproductive rights, or the legitimacy of the 2020 election and the Capitol insurrection on January 6th, she dictated much of the flow of the conversation. Harris’ strength came from her ability to consistently steer the debate back to Trump’s most vulnerable points. When pressed on these issues, Trump floundered, often reverting to defensive, vague responses that failed to land effectively.

Yet, Harris’ win was not purely a product of Trump’s self-inflicted wounds. She successfully connected with voters on key policy issues that have resonated with the Democratic base throughout this election cycle. She defended the Biden administration’s stance on abortion rights passionately, framing the issue as a fundamental fight for women's autonomy and freedoms. Similarly, when discussing Trump’s criminal indictments, Harris was able to underscore her position as the candidate of law, order and integrity, which is traditionally a flank that Republicans do their best to tout. Her ability to stay on message proved critical in the debate.

Where Trump could have struck a blow, however, was on the economy. Many Americans view the economy under Biden as mediocre, with inflation and cost-of-living issues continuing to strain household finances. This issue remains one of the Democrats’ most vulnerable points. Yet Trump failed to capitalise on this weakness. Instead of focusing on pocketbook issues that could have resonated with undecided voters or those frustrated with the current administration, Trump drifted into unprovoked tangents. His inability to focus on this key area may have cost him the most during the debate.

For political historians, the debate marked a stark contrast to the more eloquent and substantive exchanges of earlier presidential contests. In 2012, the debates between President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney were notable for their sharp ideological differences, but also for the clarity and poise with which both candidates presented their views. Both men, products of Harvard, exhibited a mastery of policy and a respect for the norms of debate. In contrast, the 2024 contest is lightyears away from those high points. The chaotic nature of this debate reflected the broader polarisation and shift away from the traditional markers of presidential decorum.

Kamala Harris won this debate not through flawless debating, but by managing to maintain focus and control in the face of Trump’s scattered, and at times, bizarre performance. Her ability to keep the conversation on her terms allowed her to dodge any major blunders, while Trump’s missteps repeatedly undermined his credibility. The debate, much like the 2024 race itself, is a reflection of the changing dynamics of American politics, where composure, even if imperfect, is enough to edge out disarray.