Harris shines in the debate, but Trump remains a potent candidate

The presidential debate performance on Tuesday night by US Vice President Kamala Harris wasn’t perfect, but the glitches were rare and unimportant, as she executed a well-crafted, relentless attack on her Republican opponent, former president Donald Trump. He could certainly still win the election. But he was constantly, and most unusually, on the defensive. Ms Harris is now bolstered by a crushing victory that accomplished virtually every goal – many in complex tension with each other – that the occasion demanded. The campaigns are battling for a few remaining persuadable voters in six or seven swing states. It’s unlikely many switched to Mr Trump after his dismal performance. Ms Harris faced especially daunting challenges. She had to demonstrate “presidential” mettle by standing up to him, yet avoid seeming snippy, obnoxious or unpleasant. This is especially challenging for women, who are typically judged harshly for assertiveness often considered admirable from men. She rattled him immediately, confidently marching into his stage space and forcing a handshake that he evidently neither expected nor enjoyed. It was a subtle exercise in the physical dominance Mr Trump well understands. She initially overdid her incredulous facial expressions at his rhetorical excesses. But even these became increasingly effective, almost seeming concerned for him, in stark contrast to his scowls and smirks. TV debates are often best evaluated on mute. Ms Harris appeared relaxed and confident, while Mr Trump looked alternately irritated, infuriated or uncomfortable, a stereotypical grumpy old man. She smiled broadly as he fell into trap after trap. Her attacks were so effective that she essentially transformed him into the incumbent, and herself into an upstart challenger, even though she’s in the White House and he isn’t. She launched stinging salvos against his criminal convictions, dependence on lies, and key vulnerabilities such as reproductive rights. She consistently baited him, so successfully that he sometimes appeared to lose his temper, barking “quiet!” at her and several times being reduced to shouting. Ms Harris was clearly well prepared, continuously pivoting to directly address voters, explaining what she would do for “you”, while insisting that Mr Trump has nothing to offer “you”. He seemed unprepared, although when she lured him into relitigating the 2020 election, he apparently suddenly recalled that was a mistake, quickly affirming the past is unimportant. It was an unconvincing correction. The debate was predictably short on substance, but Ms Harris made the only serious efforts to talk about policy ideas, and several times appealed for a discussion about their proposals. Mr Trump variously claimed she has no plans, that she intends to “destroy” the country, and even, mystifyingly, that she has now embraced his governing philosophy. The incompatibility of the three appeared lost on him. Mr Trump returned almost compulsively to his signature issue, immigration . But he handled it clumsily, relying on outlandish hyperbole and even regurgitating a racist urban legend about Haitian migrants eating other people’s pet cats. When moderators noted that officials in Springfield, Ohio – the purported site of this mythical feasting – flatly deny the fabrication, he responded that he had seen it on TV. He thereby botched a potentially potent issue. Ms Harris, by contrast, gave an artful response regarding Palestinians and Israel, a dangerously divisive issue among Democrats. She denounced the Hamas attack of October 7 and pledged to defend Israel against Iran or its proxies. But she bemoaned the suffering of Palestinians and strongly endorsed a two-state solution, insisting Palestinians must enjoy “self-determination, freedom and the dignity they so rightly deserve”. That gave as much to each side as plausible. Mr Trump’s response – claiming that she hates Israel but also hates Arabs – was incoherent, ad hominem and hostile. Mr Trump tried to corner Ms Harris on the US military withdrawal from Afghanistan , but he ended up defending his own record of dealing with the Taliban. He refused to say that he wants Ukraine to defeat the Russian invasion. And he repeatedly praised and cited the “strongman” Hungarian Prime Minister, Viktor Orban. Ms Harris repeated her convention pledge to maintain the US military as “the most lethal” in the world, hawkish phraseology atypical of Democrats but appealing to many independents. She hammered him on issue after issue, didn’t “lose” a single exchange and carried most of them decisively. He appeared particularly irked when she questioned the size and enthusiasm of his rally crowds, once again demonstrating his predictability. Indeed, one of her strongest selling points is that she offers something new and different, an opportunity to turn the page on a political environment defined by Mr Trump, US President Joe Biden and their generation. Stylistically, despite her determination to demonstrate “strength” by being assertive and even combative, she managed to be forward-looking, offering voters a new era in US politics. A glowering Mr Trump, by contrast, was unrelentingly negative. Swing voters may prefer her optimism and the opportunity to move away from ongoing divisions, although economic discontent could prevent that. She was especially effective in her response to his attacks on her mixed ethnic heritage , urging Americans to put racial and other divisions aside and unite as a single people. This is something Mr Trump has never even hinted at in his political career, which has been based almost entirely on dividing the country. The closing arguments summarised the evening: Ms Harris appealed to Americans for unity and optimism for a new future, while Mr Trump bitterly denounced his opponent, her administration and the supposedly “failing” and wretched state of the country. Mr Trump suffered a devastating defeat, and he knows it. He’s claiming he prevailed despite it being “three on one”, suggesting that the moderators were biased for occasionally correcting some of his falsehoods. When someone is complaining about the moderators, they know they’ve lost. Mr Biden’s meltdown on June 27 demonstrated that debates can reshape elections. If Ms Harris wins in November, this debate may be recalled as a key inflection point moving late-breaking voters into her camp. She clearly won the debate. That doesn’t mean she’ll win the election. But her chances seem better than ever. If nothing else, Ms Harris has just executed one of the finest and most effective debate performances in US political history.