A breakdown of the presidential debate

Both former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris had something to prove going into Tuesday’s debate. Harris needed to show she was capable of standing up to an adversary and laying out a clear vision for America. Trump had to show he could rein in his volatile behavior and offer something resembling stability. The vice president met the first part of her threshold, but did not clearly articulate her insights for the future. The former president failed the assignment completely.

With few remaining inflection points before election day, the event afforded both candidates a rare chance to gain an edge in this incredibly tight race. Whether either succeeded in that effort remains an open question. Harris clearly won the night, exceeding expectations, but her victory was more the result of Trump’s poor showing than her own performance.

Harris benefited enormously from the fact that her opponent was Trump. Comparison is key, and she looked fantastic opposite the former president. Her flaws appeared insignificant in the face of his many outbursts, and, by the end of the night, a clear contrast had emerged. He came across as bitter, disjointed and unstable. She, on the other hand, came across as hopeful, personable and — most importantly — presidential. In short, the former prosecutor delivered order, and the former president delivered chaos.

Harris was well prepared for the debate, and it showed. Her talking points were well thought out and she stayed on message throughout the night. Her criticisms of Trump were mostly effective, especially regarding his failed handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and sympathy toward authoritarian dictators. Harris was most compelling, though, when she discussed abortion. She took a narrative-driven approach — something she employed throughout the night but used most effectively on this issue — designed to connect with the audience at home.

As Trump claimed that he’d “gotten what everybody wanted” with the overturning of Roe v. Wade, Harris challenged him with stories of women around the country who had suffered miscarriages and survived incest — who certainly, as she said, “didn’t want that.” The moment was powerful and gave Harris a chance to shine on a winning issue.

Harris’ most significant victory, however, had nothing to do with policy. Rather, it was her ability to get under Trump’s skin. She knew where to jab him, and she jabbed hard. Most notably, about one-third of the way through the debate, Harris suggested that people are leaving the former president’s rallies early “out of exhaustion and boredom.”

Trump, who had largely held himself together up to this point, completely lost it. His response was loud and erratic. In the same breath, he called America a “failing nation,” said we would soon be engaged in a third world war and falsely accused Haitian immigrants of eating people’s pets in Springfield, Ohio. His raised voice seemed more the result of feeling emasculated than being in control.

This was the turning point of the debate. The former president never regained his composure, spending the remainder of the night digging himself deeper into a hole. He ranted endlessly about everything from the wealth left to him by his father to conspiracies surrounding the outcome of the 2020 election. He didn’t just look mean; he looked off-kilter. 

This was a success for Harris: She made Trump appear unfit for office without taking any serious damage herself. But being successful as president requires more than winning a side-by-side competition. And, beyond defusing the threat of another Trump term, Harris gave independents few reasons to vote for her.

After the Democratic National Convention, this Editorial Board criticized Harris for her lack of substantive policy proposals, arguing that she was trying to win the White House on buzzwords alone. She has since released an issues page on her campaign website; however, she failed to sufficiently expound on those ideas on the debate stage. Why won’t her $25,000 subsidy to first-time homebuyers create inflation? Why won’t her ban on price gouging cause shortages? We don’t know because she didn’t tell us.

Moreover, how will she achieve these goals? It’s likely that Republicans will win the Senate in November, and control of the House of Representatives remains a toss up. Harris made no mention of how she’d overcome a divided government to enact her vision. Her campaign pitch at the DNC was “joy.” Now, it’s “joy” plus free money — without any description of how she’d get that free money apportioned.

Harris needs to put this agenda-related concern to rest. She had the opportunity on Tuesday, with more than 67 million people watching, and she didn’t take it. She’s unlikely to have the chance to speak to an audience that large again. 

Yes, Harris won the debate, but she can’t afford to become complacent. She was aided by friendly moderators and an opponent too incoherent to point out her vulnerabilities — neither one pushed back when she falsely claimed, for example, that there are no U.S. troops deployed in active combat zones under the Biden-Harris administration. If Trump finds his footing or she encounters hostility from the press, the status of the race could change dramatically.

Americans were treated to a taste of this during the former president’s closing statements. Trump made a concerted effort to connect Harris’ record to Biden’s, pressing her on why — as she’s currently in office — she hasn’t done the things she says she will.

What does this debate mean for America? It’s unclear at this point. In some ways, it was a return to normalcy, and in other ways, it was unprecedented. The candidates shook hands before taking the stage for the first time in eight years, and the number of blatant personal insults was kept to a minimum. There was no “Don’t ever use the word ‘smart’ with me” or “Will you shut up, man?” moments. These ad hominem attacks were replaced with other ridiculous statements, but in this election cycle, we take our wins where we can find them.

Alternatively, the muted mics and lack of a live audience revealed a political process that is increasingly dysfunctional. Restraint, not written rules, used to guide the decorum of our elected officials. That era seems long gone.

November is drawing closer, and things will continue to heat up. With future debates up in the air, it’s crucial that the American electorate take Harris’ and Trump’s rhetoric and proposals seriously. Harris may have been the “winner” and Trump may have been the “loser” of the night, but these titles won’t last forever: In two months, Americans go to the ballot box to decide their own fate.

This editorial represents the opinion of The Michigan Daily’s Editorial Board. If you are interested in submitting an Op-Ed or Letter to the Editor, please send your submission to tothedaily@michigandaily.com.

Related articles