After eight years, much suffering, and a disaster that led to the resignation of their leader in June, none other than the sitting president, Joe Biden, the Democratic Party finally managed to find the exact combination of keys to clearly win an electoral debate against Donald Trump. A solid strategy executed soberly by Kamala Harris, the vice president, the same person who until just a few weeks ago was not only denigrated by the former president, who never lacked derogatory terms to belittle her, but also by her own who saw her as weak, lacking charisma, incapable of defeating the billionaire who has turned the country, society, and the way politics is done upside down over the past decade.
After a fierce exchange on leadership, economy, international politics, and social issues, Harris emerges strengthened, having made no mistakes and successfully getting under Trump's skin on several occasions, showing his most irascible, uncontrolled, and erratic side. Analysts, opinion makers, political strategists, and above all the public agreed on the diagnosis. 63% of registered voters who watched ABC on Tuesday night considered that the vice president performed better, according to a CNN survey, compared to only 37% who saw the Republican as the winner. Before the debate, the same voters were evenly divided on which candidate would prevail.
Harris dominates Trump, but not everything is decided
Analysts had been speculating for weeks about the clash. It was not an epic night, it may not stand out in the history books, but it was engaging and maintained a good pace, especially in its central part. And it managed to surprise almost everyone. It is too early to know the real impact of the confrontation on the polls, especially in the most contested states, but traditionally a clear victory has temporarily boosted candidacies by a few percentage points.
The Democrat's plan could not have been simpler: present her more moderate and centrist side, target Trump's ego, and wait for his anger to do the rest. And it worked perfectly. She remained calm and smiling all night, "strong, but without stridency," in the words spoken the day before by Senator Chuck Schumer, one of the heavyweights of the progressive front. Without taking the bait, without getting entangled, ignoring personal jabs and the rhetorical torrent that characterizes Trump, a force of nature.
Unlike Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden in 2016 and 2020, Harris did not obsess over dismantling her rival's falsehoods or exposing her program or what she considers the administration's greatest successes. She used every opportunity, from the opening statement, to distance and differentiate herself, to portray the Republican as a friend of the wealthy who abandons the middle class, but above all as someone furious, always angry, "anchored in the past" and with no plan for the future.
Trump is a force of nature, uncontrollable, unstoppable, as hurtful and disrespectful as he is entertaining in his interventions, with a unique talent in front of the cameras and the public. "The best insulter in many generations", in the words of one of his former Republican rivals. Trying to keep up with him is suicide. Entering his game is a sure defeat. And Harris avoided it at all times, choosing the topics where she could inflict damage ("Donald Trump was fired by 81 million Americans and he's struggling to accept it") without following his lead. Revealing a side of Trump that he was unfamiliar with, after belittling her, underestimating her, and ignoring her until now.
When the moderators asked her about his inconsistencies, contradictions, or the most sensitive issues, from inflation to immigration policy, Harris simply ignored the question and activated her plan: baiting him. Trump started off calm, but every time his opponent pricked his fragile vanity, he took the bait. And instead of delving into his weaknesses and inconsistencies, instead of pressing on what was only mentioned at the end, "why hasn't he done it before" if he's in power, he became defensive and blurred.
Each response became visceral, leading the moderators to cut off the former president or correct his statements. Harris succeeded by stating that people who attend the billionaire's rallies leave before they end out of boredom. She did it again by pointing out that important figures from the Republican Party, like former Vice President Dick Cheney, are voting for her. And she hit a nerve by using economists from Trump's alma mater against his policies or stating that "world leaders laugh at Donald Trump and think he is a disgrace."
From calmness, it escalated to shouting, accelerated speeches. One tantrum after another defending that his rallies "are the best in history" or that "many professors say my economic plan is extraordinary." Personal attacks against her or Biden "that poor weak and pathetic man" and unbelievable lies. On three occasions, the moderators of ABC had to address the millions of viewers to clarify that "there is no law in any state in the USA that allows killing newborns," in response to Trump's recurring claim that Democrats allow "not abortion, but the execution of born babies."
They had to intervene a second time to emphasize that according to all authorities, there have been no reported cases of any communities eating pets after the former president repeated and even amplified the falsehood that Haitian immigrants "are eating people's dogs and cats" in Ohio. And even once more to make it clear that Trump lost the 2020 elections and that none of the more than 60 lawsuits initiated by Republicans in different states have reached a different conclusion, despite Trump's insistence that he won those elections and will never acknowledge his defeat.
This fact-checking and correction attitude deeply irritated his campaign, which after the first hour of the debate began to strongly criticize the network for bias. Trump himself claimed at the end, on social media and even in person, when he unexpectedly descended to the press room, something unprecedented, and as a demonstration that a reaction was necessary to contain the damage, that it had been "the best debate" of his life and that it was particularly remarkable because "it was three against one," referring to the ABC moderators.
The face-off ultimately presented two completely opposite visions, two irreconcilable styles, one positive and the other negative. She spoke of future opportunities while he denounced the nation's decline, the sinking, and the current crisis. Trump's central message is that his presidency was the best in history and the next one will be even better, although when pressed for specifics, such as in healthcare, he said he only has "outlines, concepts of a plan" and not a concrete one because that is done once in power.
He remained anchored in the past, including the months following the 2020 defeat. "We are a failed nation, in serious decline. The world is laughing at us, we have no leader, we are clueless," he said in his speech, attacking "the worst vice president in the country's history."
Harris's message, which never resembled the "radical leftist and Marxist" caricatured by Republicans, was one of "hope." "I am not Joe Biden and clearly not Donald Trump. I propose a new leadership that promotes optimism instead of always being angry," she concluded after one of her rival's irritable responses. "We need to turn the page. We have two visions of the country, one for the future and one for the past that wants to drag us down. But we are not going back," she emphasized in her final statement.