The much-anticipated presidential debate between former U.S. President Donald Trump and current Vice President Kamala Harris captured the attention of millions. Taking place without a live audience at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the debate revolved around crucial topics like migration, fracking, and the Israel-Gaza conflict. With the polls showing a tight race, both candidates were vying for the attention of undecided voters, especially in key swing states. But who came out on top? Here’s what political observers and analysts had to say.
The Policy Contrast: Trump vs. Harris
Barbara Perry, a presidential historian from the University of Virginia, emphasized the contrast between the two candidates’ debate performances. While Trump stuck to broad claims about America’s “dark past” under Democratic leadership, Harris aimed to present concrete plans for the future. According to Perry, Trump’s supporters received plenty of “red meat” rhetoric, particularly on topics like immigration, while Harris sought to appeal to moderate voters in swing states by avoiding any major gaffes.
Perry also noted that Harris’s debate performance earned her a coveted endorsement from pop star Taylor Swift, which could energize younger voters—a demographic that has been crucial for Democratic victories in recent elections. Swift’s endorsement came immediately after the debate, with the singer announcing her support for Harris, a move that could sway some undecided voters.
Fact-Checking and Misinformation
One of the most controversial moments of the debate came when Trump repeated a debunked claim that immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, were “eating pets.” This statement drew a sharp rebuke from Michelle Austin Pamies, a Haitian-American lawyer from South Florida. She applauded the moderator for fact-checking Trump’s remarks, highlighting how the former president’s comments perpetuated harmful stereotypes about immigrants, particularly Haitians. Pamies expressed that it was important to address such “ugliness” in a national debate, as it exposed the divisive rhetoric that can alienate immigrant communities.
On the other side, Republican strategist John Feehery accused the moderators of being more focused on fact-checking Trump than on scrutinizing Harris’s statements, claiming she also made “whoppers” that went unchecked. Despite this, Feehery conceded that Harris’s style was more polished, particularly after she overcame some initial nerves.
The Israel-Gaza Conflict: A Decisive Factor?
Perhaps one of the most politically charged topics of the night was the ongoing Israel-Gaza conflict, which triggered protests outside the debate venue in Philadelphia. Demonstrators demanded a ceasefire and condemned the U.S. government’s support for Israel. Reem Abuelhaj, a spokesperson for the group No Ceasefire No Vote Pennsylvania, explained that many voters felt disillusioned by both candidates’ positions on the conflict, particularly Harris’s commitment to continuing the Biden administration’s unconditional support for Israel.
This issue is particularly sensitive in Pennsylvania, a swing state where some Democratic voters have expressed dissatisfaction with the party’s foreign policy stance. According to Abuelhaj, over 60,000 voters in the state opted for a write-in candidate during the primaries rather than support President Biden, a sentiment that could potentially extend to Harris in November. For these voters, Harris’s stance on Israel might have hurt her chances of securing their votes.
Gender Dynamics in the Debate
Kelly Dittmar, director of research at the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University-Camden, observed how gender dynamics played a role in the debate. According to Dittmar, Harris’s strategy was to engage directly with Trump, often looking him in the eye while he refused to return the gesture. This refusal could be interpreted as dismissive, especially by female voters who may see it as a sign of disrespect.
Dittmar also noted that while Harris’s facial expressions—showing confusion or disbelief at some of Trump’s claims—could be criticized by some, they likely resonated with voters who shared her concerns. For many women in politics, displaying emotion is often scrutinized more harshly than for their male counterparts, but in this debate, Harris’s expressions may have made her more relatable to certain audiences.
Environmental Concerns: Fracking in Focus
The debate also touched on fracking, an issue of great significance in Pennsylvania, one of the country’s largest producers of natural gas. Shannon Smith, executive director of the FracTracker Alliance, expressed disappointment that neither candidate offered a comprehensive plan to address the environmental and health impacts of fracking. Smith criticized both Trump and Harris for their lack of political will in confronting the harmful effects of the practice, despite overwhelming evidence of its negative consequences.
For voters concerned about climate change and environmental justice, this lack of action from both parties could be a deciding factor. Smith’s remarks reflect the frustration of many Pennsylvania residents who have long lived with the consequences of fracking and are looking for a candidate willing to take stronger action on environmental issues.
Voter Preferences and the Overall Impact
While Kamala Harris was praised for her debate performance by some observers, Aaron Kall, director of debate at the University of Michigan, urged caution in declaring a clear winner. He noted that while Harris appeared more composed and policy-driven, the overall impact of the debate on voter preferences remains unclear. The stakes are high, but Kall pointed out that debates rarely result in significant shifts in the trajectory of the race, especially with so many voters already entrenched in their positions.
This sentiment is echoed in post-debate analysis, where the debate was described as more of a “boxing match” than a substantive policy discussion. Both candidates traded blows, but neither delivered a knockout punch that could decisively sway undecided voters. According to some polls, the race remains neck and neck, meaning future debates and campaign events will be crucial in determining the outcome of the 2024 presidential election.
Conclusion
In the aftermath of the Trump-Harris debate, opinions on who “won” are divided along party lines. Trump’s base likely came away satisfied with his hard-hitting rhetoric on immigration and national security, while Harris appealed to more moderate and undecided voters with her focus on policy specifics. Both candidates, however, left some key constituencies—such as those concerned with environmental issues and foreign policy—feeling disappointed.
As the election nears, it’s clear that while the debate offered moments of clarity, it also highlighted the deep divisions within the electorate. With major issues like the Israel-Gaza conflict, immigration, and fracking at the forefront, the 2024 presidential race will continue to hinge on how each candidate navigates these complex and contentious topics. Kamala Harris may have gained a slight edge with her performance, but the true impact of the debate remains to be seen in the coming weeks.
