Last night Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump met in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in their first 2024 Presidential election debate. Richard Thomas writes that Harris took the initiative from the outset with some memorable attack lines to bait Trump, while the former President concentrated on a more theatrical performance, which at times meant that he angrily veered off message. Perhaps just as important as the debate performances, is superstar Taylor Swift’s post-debate endorsement of Kamala Harris, ostensibly confirming a good night for the Vice President.

As pundits and commentators mulled over the first (and perhaps only) TV debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump last night, the news that the American superstar singer-songwriter Taylor Swift had moved quickly to endorse Harris shortly after it finished seemed to confirm that the VP had a more productive night than her opponent.

Why presidential debates are important

The televised Presidential debates are pivotal moments within every campaign and inevitably draw extensive commentary and evaluation from journalists. As well as making politics and elections “an electronic spectator sport”, the debates are also a critical shaper of public opinion, as the rather wan Richard Nixon found to his cost when pitted against the tanned, urbane John F Kennedy for the first time over 60 years ago. Going into the televised debate a clear six points ahead in the polls, Nixon was immediately overtaken by Kennedy who thereafter went on to become President. Most political scientists cite this as the most decisive hour of the 1960 Presidential campaign, even though there we three more such debates that year.

And TV debates have already impacted the 2024 campaign, when, after taking on Donald Trump in June, the pressure on a seemingly increasingly frail President Joe Biden to quit from the campaign intensified.

His withdrawal a few weeks later, of course, changed the campaign dynamic considerably; the new Harris v Trump contest is now more multidimensional than the simple choice between two elderly white men. In that sense, the June event was not much different from the 2020 election debates, when the contests were characterised by “the continuing jibes from both sides doubting the other’s physical and mental wellbeing”.

Currently, this is scheduled to be the only time that Harris and Trump meet on stage. While Trump sought more opportunities than just this one at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Harris wanted to wait until after the debate before committing to any further such events. Before last night, polls suggested that the Vice President was clinging onto the marginal lead she had established since entering the race when Biden stepped down.

Harris takes the initiative while Trump sticks to theatrics

It became clear from an early stage in Tuesday’s debate that while the format might have generally survived the six decades since Nixon and Kennedy met onscreen, the gentile manners and polite etiquette of the past have not. Harris immediately seemed to take the initiative (and perhaps some of the moral high ground too) by walking towards Trump and offering her hand, but this was perhaps the only friendly moment during a 90-minute exchange characterised by its vitriol and name-calling.

Harris’ public appearances have been tightly scripted thus far, and many felt that not being able to use preprepared notes might disadvantage her more that her opponent. Trump, after all, seems to revel in delivering ad hoc, off the cuff monologues, and indeed, it was suggested beforehand that he had spent little time preparing himself in terms of policy details, having instead concentrated more on the “the theatrics of his performance” . 

“Kamala Harris” (CC BY-SA 2.0) by Gage Skidmore; “Donald Trump” (CC BY-SA 2.0) by Gage Skidmore

But if it is indeed true that TV viewers (perhaps more than 60 million of them) might be most interested in “the moments where one candidate has a zinger of a line” then perhaps the most memorable of those moments belonged to Harris with her “Donald Trump was fired by 81 million people” and “Putin would eat you for lunch” jibes certainly landing cleanly.

Trump’s most noteworthy moments, on the other hand, might have been the altogether more bizarre claims that illegal immigrants were eating people’s pets in Springfield, Ohio, and the even more disturbing suggestion during a testy exchange about abortion that babies were being routinely “executed” after birth. Furthermore, his answers were frequently peppered by superlatives, describing many elements as the “best ever” or “worst ever” without any real sense of an evidential base.

Moderating and fact-checking the debate

While the name calling and bitter exchanges were perhaps expected, so too was an emphasis on fact checking during the live commentary, perhaps fuelled by The Washington Post having logged 30,573 false or misleading statements made by Trump while he was President. 

But in the new era of post-truth politics, fact checking is a much welcomed added dimension to the coverage of political debates and speeches, and it was notable that moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis themselves took some responsibility for this, for example when challenging Trump’s claims about babies being executed and pets being eaten.

The idea of muted microphones seemed to have been abandoned at times, and there was one slightly chaotic moment when all four participants were speaking at the same time. But aside from the usual claims from both sides about alleged partisanship, the moderators generally had a solid night.

The candidates’ lay out their White House plans

While election coverage and campaigning are often maligned for their lack of policy, the format of the debates does at least encourage some engagement with the Presidential plans of each candidate. Harris laid out a repeated mantra of being the middle-class champion, albeit this did, at times, seem a little light on detail aside from the tax breaks for young families and business startups.

Trump’s approach seemed altogether less constructive, painting a picture of a broken, almost dystopian nation that needed saving before it disappeared underneath waves of immigration and criminality. This was his strongest recurring theme and one that he revisited a number of times.

A better night for Harris than Trump

Both sides will take credit for a win on the night, and while it wasn’t as decisive as Nixon v Kennedy, the consensus seems to be that Harris’ calmer, more prepared approach was more effective, and that her attempts to bait her opponent and make him angry had generally worked. Indeed, nine out of Newsweek’s panel of 14 experts called a Harris victory and the New York Times suggested that “even Republicans, concluded that Kamala Harris had succeeded in provoking Donald Trump into veering off message”. Similarly, USA Today asserted that amid Trump’s “angry and rambling responses”, Harris “had the upper hand” throughout.

Overall though, those hoping for a more civil brand of debating would have been disappointed by the often petty and wrathful exchanges, and the lack of substantive detail. But Harris’ team will likely be the more satisfied and will hope that her marginal lead will now be extended. Trump, whose brand is seemingly developed from his celebrity appeal might be especially irked that possibly the biggest celebrity of them all wasted no time in endorsing his opponent. It is the VIP-personality driven world that Trump himself has helped to create, but perhaps on this occasion at least, it came back to bite him.

• Please read our comments policy before commenting. 
• Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of USAPP – American Politics and Policy, nor the London School of Economics. 
• Shortened URL for this post: https://wp.me/p3I2YF-egd