What Does It Take to Create an Identity?

A political debate is a unique opportunity for candidates to solidify their brand and show voters who they truly are. The first 2024 presidential debate last night between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris was no different, but the night carried an ironic twist.

Both candidates shared the same goal: defining who Harris is.

Trump’s brand and identity was already well-established. Love him or hate him, his style and message are consistent, and everyone knew what to expect.

For Harris, this was her first presidential debate and a critical chance to define her brand as a leader, both in policy and in character. And a big part of what everyone wanted to see was if she could hold her own against Trump.

What was starkly in contrast was their strategies in defining who she is: Trump sought to make her invisible, a nonentity, while Harris strived to establish her independence.

Trump: Defining Harris by Dismissing Her

Donald Trump’s primary goal was not just to attack Harris, but to strip her of any independent identity or brand altogether. In effect, he tried to erase her.

1. Non-verbal Dismissal: Trump employed a dismissive, ironically passive-aggressive strategy throughout the debate. He never once looked at Harris, refusing to acknowledge her presence as if she were unworthy of acknowledgement.
2. Baiting by Indirectness: Similarly, Trump never addressed Harris directly—he didn’t say “you” to her once until his closing statement. Instead, he only talked about her in the third person, constantly using “she” or “they” when connecting her with the Biden administration. By never addressing her directly, verbally and nonverbally, Trump modeled what he wanted voters to do: disregard her.
3. Identity by Proxy: Trump was relentless in equating Harris with Biden. He never used her name unless it was in reference to the “Biden-Harris” administration. Time and again, he repeated, “She is Biden,” framing her as the incumbent, blurring the lines between the role of a vice president and a president. His repeated question, “You had 3.5 years, why haven’t you done this already?” reinforced this narrative, making it seem as if Harris had the same authority as Biden during their term. His goal was clear: if she has no identity outside of Biden, and you’ve already ousted Biden, then you should kick out Harris too.

Harris: Trying to Craft Her Own Identity

Kamala Harris had a different strategy set. This was her moment to not only hold her own but to present herself as confident, competent, and ready to lead. She got some things right, and others not.

1. Poised and Presidential: Consistently, Harris projected confidence. She maintained a measured and intentional pace throughout the debate, remaining calm, controlled, and on-topic for the most part (regardless of which topic she elected to stay on). And that looks and sounds good.
2. Missed Nonverbal Connection: Harris’s primary tactic was to confront Trump head-on, hoping to bait him into a self-destructive rant. However, there was a problem. She repeatedly looked directly at him while speaking to him, but as previously mentioned, he never returned her eye contact. In the split-screen view, his refusal to meet her gaze made Trump look rude, yes, but it also made Harris appear weak at times, as if she was desperate for him to pay attention to her. She would have been better served cutting her losses and redirecting her attention to the audience and viewers at home, making them her primary focus.
3. Personal Distinction: Harris made several efforts to explicitly assert her identity as independent from Biden. She delivered memorable lines like “Donald Trump needs to remember he’s not running against Biden, he’s running against me;” and “I’m not Biden, I’m not Trump, I’m the new generation of leadership.” They were clear and concise statements to own her identity and remind people to judge her for who she is.
4. The Dangers of Autopilot: However, Harris missed another major opportunity with the opening question: “Are people better off now than they were four years ago?” It was a softball question that she should have hit out of the park. Instead, she went into autopilot, ignoring the question and delivering a prepared opening statement about her middle-class upbringing. It came off as evasive, and it left the impression that she couldn’t give a clear answer, leading viewers to wonder: If she can’t give a simple “yes” here, what does that say about her record?

The Missed Leadership Opportunity for Both: The Call to Inspire

In a political race where the candidates are neck and neck, as was the case going into the debate (49%-49%), the goal is not just to inform—it’s to inspire, and not just your fans, but those who are still on the fence.

People on the fence in any situation don’t just want facts; they want to connect with the leader on a deeper level. They want to be inspired to make a decision.

I think Harris proved that she could hold her own in the big leagues, and that was important. And Trump was Trump, pure and simple.

Unfortunately, so little policy was actually discussed all night that “holding her own” wasn’t enough to move the needle.

The real missed leadership opportunity was in the failure to inspire. In the end, without a strong brand identity that inspires, leadership will always fall flat.