Who really won the Trump-Harris debate?

Both candidates have claimed victory but whether the debate will effect the polls is unclear

Presidential candidates Kamala Harris and Donald Trump shake hands before a presidential debate in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on September 10. AFP

Latest updates: Follow our full coverage on the US election

Kamala Harris and Donald Trump came face to face for their first – and perhaps only – presidential debate on Tuesday night, with each attempting to make their case to the American people.

Both candidates claimed victory following the debate. Mr Trump told Fox & Friends on Wednesday morning that Ms Harris had “lost very bad”. Ms Harris's campaign manager praised her performance and said they had requested a second debate in October.

But who really won the debate?

Answering the questions

Mr Trump frequently found himself drawn in by Ms Harris's attempts to bait and distract him from answering the moderators' questions. At one point, Ms Harris commented on how his supposed supporters leave his rallies in droves not long after they begin due to “boredom and exhaustion”.

“She said people started leaving. People don't go to her rallies, there's no reason to go,” Mr Trump said in response to the moderators' original question, which was on immigration and border security.

“And the people that do go, she's bussing them in and paying them to be there … People don't leave my rallies, we have the biggest rallies, the most incredible rallies in the history of politics.”

Despite the “muted” microphones, which was part of the debate rules, both candidates could be heard making remarks when it was not their turn to speak. A few times during his comments Mr Trump asked Ms Harris to be quiet.

“Wait a minute, I'm talking now. If you don't mind, please. Does that sound familiar?” he said, referencing Ms Harris silencing Mr Trump's vice president in a 2020 debate by telling him: “I'm speaking.”

Perhaps by design, Mr Trump also often veered off from the original questions – even when the question was repeated – to hammer Ms Harris on illegal immigration, saying that she had allowed “millions of criminals” into the country.

False statements

Mr Trump was fact-checked by the moderators several times during the debate, in a marked change from the previous debate between him and President Joe Biden in June.

After he claimed that Democrats wanted to allow abortion up to the ninth month, which he called “execution”, the moderators stepped in to say that this is illegal in all 50 states. Mr Trump had not claimed that this was current practice, however, but rather that Ms Harris was pushing for it.

Ms Harris, however, has made no such public statement in support of ninth-month abortion.

The former president also claimed that illegal immigrants were descending on cities across the country and were eating people's pets. “In Springfield [Ohio], they're eating the dogs, the people that came in, they're eating the cats. They're eating the pets of the people that live there,” he said.

The moderators pushed back, saying that, contacted by ABC News, the city manager in Springfield said there were no credible reports of pets being harmed by those in the immigrant community.

Critics have said that the frequent interruptions made it feel like Mr Trump was debating three people instead of one, giving Ms Harris an unfair advantage as they never pushed back on any of her statements.

Meanwhile, Ms Harris claimed that, thanks to the efforts of the Biden administration, “there is not one member of the military who is in active duty in a combat zone in any war zone around the world for the first time this century”.

The US ended its 20-year war in Afghanistan in 2021. But a small number of US troops are deployed in dangerous areas across the Middle East, including Syria, which is still in embroiled in civil war, though fighting has died down considerably since it began in 2011.

There are also US troops stationed in Iraq, which the US invaded in 2003. While not technically an active war zone, Iraq is under heavy influence from Iran-backed militias that have ratcheted up attacks on US soldiers over the course of the past year. US sailors are also patrolling the Red Sea, where Yemen's Houthi rebels conduct regular rocket attacks.

Rehearsed responses?

Ms Harris has been criticised for not speaking to reporters more, away from the props of teleprompters and notes. As a former prosecutor, she is accustomed to memorising lengthy opening and closing statements.

This became apparent during the debate when she gave answers that sometimes appeared rehearsed.

In responding – or rather not responding – to how she would end the Israel-Gaza war, she made essentially the same remarks she did during her speech at the Democratic National Convention, which aligned perfectly with what the Biden administration has been saying for months.

“What we know is that this war must end. It must end immediately. And the way it will end is we need a ceasefire deal and we need the hostages out,” she said when asked how she would end the conflict.

Mr Trump, meanwhile, is known for going off-script during campaign events and creating viral sound bites. His answers, though they at times bordered on the nonsensical, did not sound meticulously planned and curated.

This is something that could help Mr Trump connect with undecided voters who might appreciate the contrast between his lack of verbal polish and Ms Harris's slick veneer of practised politician.

Final verdict

Mr Trump was somewhat more restrained than his previous debate against Joe Biden, but he was clearly rattled by having to face off against a younger, stronger, more prepared opponent. The strength he projected during the previous debate was much diminished.

His responses were rambling and he was not allowed to get away with making as many blatantly false statements this time round.

Ms Harris, meanwhile, remained poised and focused in her responses. There were times when her answers gave off a strong whiff of the same tired generalities on certain issues that the Biden administration has been pushing for the last three and a half years, and she sidestepped taking any responsibility for the situation on the US southern border or outlining any plans for dealing with it.

Ultimately, however, Ms Harris's past as a prosecutor shone clearly through. She won this particular case, but whether she will triumph in November is still unclear.