Why Kamala Harris Won the Debate

In the first seconds of the debate, Kamala Harris made it clear who was playing at a presidential level. As she walked up to Trump to greet him, she highlighted the difference between the composure of someone ready to lead and the arrogance of someone who lives by bluster. It was a simple gesture, but it projected the image of a stateswoman before 50 million viewers, eager to see who really had something to offer. While Trump would fall back on old clichés with no depth or substance, Harris was about to play in the realm of reality, contrasting her middle-class background with the privilege of a wealthy heir. The result? She didn’t need any grand new ideas, just a firm, assured demeanour that made it clear who was prepared for the challenge.

Harris’s great advantage that night was pre-empting Trump’s predictability, dismantling his populist rhetoric before it could gain traction. While the Democrat discussed real and urgent issues for voters, Trump tangled himself in vague accusations and baseless fantasies, relying on yet another disinformation spectacle, repeatedly corrected by the moderators. To the audience, the contrast must have been stark: on one side, a prepared leader; on the other, an agitator with nothing to offer but empty nostalgia. Harris’s victory didn’t come from her arguments alone but from a presidential stance that, for the first time, became apparent—something Trump never managed to achieve.

The first topic of the debate, as expected, was the top concern of American voters: the economy. A CBS News poll, conducted between 3-6 September in the swing states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, had already indicated that this would be the main focus. Kamala Harris, without introducing any major new ideas, recycled her usual proposals: an “economy of opportunity,” housing support, and a $6,000 tax credit per child—proposals which, in Latin America, I wouldn’t hesitate to classify as clientelist. As expected, she made sure to highlight her middle-class background, in an attempt to distance herself from Trump, whom she portrayed as a detached wealthy heir, out of touch with middle-class American concerns.

Did she fail to go into detail about her proposals and dodge criticisms of economic populism raised by some media outlets? Yes, she did. However, what Kamala Harris presented still had much more appeal to the average voter than Trump’s predictable spectacle, once again invoking the old refrain that the rest of the world should pay the United States for everything the country has done for them. Rather than explaining how his trade tariffs would improve the lives of ordinary citizens, he quickly reverted to the outdated rhetoric of jobs being "stolen" by foreigners—of course, without providing any data to support that claim. Within the first few minutes of the debate, Trump’s lack of preparation was clear. Instead of delving into Harris’s proposals or discussing potential side effects, he, perhaps overly confident in the polls that still give him an edge on economic issues, resorted to the same tired, hollow rhetoric that dominated the rest of the debate.

Aware of what was coming, Harris adopted a simple but brilliant strategy: foretelling to the audience exactly what they would hear from Trump throughout the night. It may seem obvious, but by doing so, Harris turned what might have been interpreted as Trump’s frustration into confirmation of what she had already predicted. In other words, she exposed her opponent’s predictability, which, for undecided voters, might have appeared as a sign of a leader capable of interpreting the landscape well. For those who don’t share Trump’s apocalyptic vision, the Republican’s alarmism stopped being a threat and became merely a validation of Harris’s warning.

When the debate moved on to the second topic, abortion and reproductive rights, Trump once again insisted on the false claim that Democrats, like a former governor of Virginia, supported abortion in the ninth month of pregnancy. The moderator, Linsey Davis of ABC News, had to step in and correct him, explaining that no US state allows such late-term abortions. Harris, meanwhile, was far more skilful. She not only spoke to the progressive, pro-choice audience but also brought up real-life examples, such as teenagers at risk who might need the procedure.

Moreover, Harris deftly addressed religious voters, mentioning that “some couples pray for a child” and that “it doesn’t matter what your faith is.” She made it clear that she respected everyone’s concerns. But the true masterstroke came when she stated that Trump would sign a bill to monitor everyone’s lives, referring to control over women’s bodies. With that, she shifted the debate away from the classic pro-choice versus pro-life argument and reframed it in terms of privacy and state control. It was a smart move that repositioned the debate in broader terms, turning it into a discussion about individual freedom, putting Trump in a difficult spot.

When the topic of immigration came up—a potential Achilles’ heel for Kamala Harris, given her role as Vice President in leading diplomatic efforts on Latin American migration—she navigated it with skill. Asked about the Biden administration’s slow response in adopting a firmer stance to curb the migratory flow from the southern border, Harris didn’t hesitate to turn up the heat on Donald Trump. Besides using the Democrats’ justification that Trump had sabotaged a bipartisan deal, instructing Republican senators to block the bill to prevent Biden from gaining electoral advantage, Harris went further, highlighting her experience in combating drug trafficking and criminals, positioning herself as the only one on stage with that kind of knowledge.

She also reinforced her strategy of “inoculating” against Trump, warning the audience that he would revisit the issue multiple times during the debate, pre-empting the opponent’s argument. The cherry on top, though, was the calculated mockery when she suggested voters attend Republican rallies, where Trump frequently mentions fictional characters like Hannibal Lecter—the serial killer portrayed by Anthony Hopkins. With that, Harris made her strategy clear: provoke Trump to the point of making him lose control and adopt his aggressive stance—the very stance that repels moderate voters, the same ones who, according to polls by The New York Times and Siena College, represent 60% of the undecided and are the key demographic to win the election.

The Republican campaign was so concerned about keeping Trump restrained that, when agreeing on the debate rules, they insisted on the microphones being turned off while the opponent was speaking—a strategy that worked in part. Although this limited some interruptions, Trump couldn’t resist Harris’s provocations and quickly returned to his usual megalomania, with the “mine is better than yours” rhetoric. Like a child in kindergarten competing with a classmate, he boasted that his rallies were the biggest, the most amazing, and even accused Harris of paying people to attend hers.

But the most absurd point was yet to come: the fake news of the night. Trump claimed that Haitian immigrants were eating dogs and cats in Springfield, Ohio—a false piece of information, originating from a Facebook post, that was not confirmed by any local authority. Moderator David Muir promptly debunked it, informing that media outlets had contacted Springfield authorities, who completely denied the occurrence.

When asked how he planned to deport over 11 million undocumented immigrants, Trump blatantly avoided the question. Instead of offering any concrete plan or public policy, he made a ridiculous turn, claiming that crime in Venezuela had dropped because the country had sent its criminals to the US. As usual, he blamed Harris’s administration for the “worst security crisis in US history.” The moderator had to step in again, clarifying that, according to the FBI, crime in the country is declining, once again debunking Trump.

The immigration debate made it clear that Harris knows how to navigate tricky terrain, especially when compared to Trump’s repetitive and unsubstantial stance. However, not all issues were handled as well by her. When questioned about one of her weakest points—her constant shifts on issues like fracking, a controversial method of extracting oil and natural gas but crucial to Pennsylvania’s economy—Harris stated her support for the measure and assured that her values hadn’t changed. She pointed out that, in 2022, she cast a decisive Senate vote to pass a bill that included a controversial provision, allowing the expansion of federal land and water leases for oil and gas exploration, favouring fracking.

However, Harris missed a significant opportunity to bolster her image. There are records, even video footage, showing that, in the past, she opposed fracking, and now affirming her support came across more as political adaptation than genuine conviction. Here, she could have turned the issue into an advantage by admitting that changing one’s opinion is part of political evolution, especially when acknowledging the economic needs of certain regions. Instead of sounding defensive, Harris could have emphasised her flexibility in listening to society, highlighting how much that differentiates her from Trump’s rigidity. It was a response that, although not negative, wasted the chance to strengthen her image and draw a clearer contrast with her opponent.

When it came to the attacks on American democracy, when asked if he had any regrets about the January 6, 2020, Capitol attack, Donald Trump, predictably, couldn’t take responsibility. Instead of answering, he diverted the focus, repeating his lies about “millions of criminals” coming from outside and, of course, once again attacking the American electoral and judicial system—something that has become his standard playbook. Harris, on the other hand, didn’t waste time. She reminded everyone that she was present as a senator on the day of the attack and was clear in accusing Trump of directly instigating the violence.

Harris didn’t miss the chance to contrast her stance with Trump’s, using examples and data to expose the ex-president’s anti-democratic side. And she went further: she brought back the events of Charlottesville, recalling the shameful march of white supremacists and, worse yet, Trump’s absurd comment that “there were very fine people on both sides.” By connecting these events, Harris made it clear that Trump’s coup-plotting and complicity with hate speech weren’t slip-ups—they’re part of a pattern of behaviour.

Kamala Harris made a clear appeal to the public, asking the country to finally turn the page and leave behind this outdated mindset. Without hesitation, she made it clear that in her campaign, there’s room for those who believe in democratic values, echoing what other leaders highlighted at the Democratic Convention. The final blow came when she quipped, with irony, that Trump “was fired by 81 million people,” using against him the famous catchphrase from The Apprentice—but this time to remind everyone who really lost in the electoral race.

When the subject turned to foreign policy, Kamala Harris hit back where Trump tried to attack. Besides reaffirming the commitment to defending Israel—already expected—she sent a clear message to two important groups: the young and Arab descendants, advocating for a two-state solution. This was especially relevant for the swing state of Michigan, where Arabs make up over 2% of the population. Meanwhile, Trump, in his typical exaggerated style, accused Harris of “hating both Jews and Arabs” and said that if she became president, “Israel would cease to exist.” Harris wasted no time and responded with precision, calling Trump a puppet easily manipulated by the flattery of dictators like Putin and Kim Jong-Un. To top it off, she reminded everyone that military leaders who worked with Trump consider him pathetic.

When asked about the war in Ukraine, Trump avoided directly answering whether he wanted Ukraine to win. Instead, he sidestepped the question, saying it was important to preserve lives on both sides. Moreover, he tried to blame Harris, claiming that the war only happened because she failed as a negotiator, being, according to him, even worse than Joe Biden. Harris, with a more presidential and diplomatic demeanour, highlighted the importance of defending international rules and principles. She said NATO allies remain united because Trump is not president and that if he were in power, Putin would already be in Kyiv. It was a clever move by Harris, who managed to capitalise on the Biden administration’s successes in foreign policy while distancing herself from more unpopular topics, like the troop withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Pressed on the chaotic Kabul withdrawal, Harris tried to downplay the damage, stating that the US was no longer spending $300 million a day on the war and blaming a poorly negotiated agreement by Trump during his presidency. Harris didn’t miss the opportunity to remind everyone that Trump even invited the Taliban to Camp David, a site with strong historical significance, reinforcing the idea that he has no respect for national symbols. With that, she managed to pin the blame for the withdrawal on Trump while avoiding delving into an issue that still causes headaches.

Then came the subject of race. When confronted about his comments regarding Kamala Harris’s skin colour, Trump, as usual, dodged the issue, saying, “She can be whatever she wants.” Harris, on the other hand, avoided identity politics, which could have been an opportunity to connect more with the Black working-class population, who often see her as part of the Black Californian elite. Even though this approach might seem like a strategic mistake in the future, Harris clearly followed a plan: instead of presenting herself as a Black woman running for president, she chose to highlight Trump’s racism, reminding everyone of his history of refusing to rent properties to Black people. Rather than elevating her own story, she lowered her opponent’s standing, exposing Trump as a racist and polariser. Whether this strategy will work or not, only time will tell.

Why did Kamala Harris win the debate?

The answer lies in the details of her demeanour and strategic choices. From the start, Harris demonstrated presidential composure, standing out as someone prepared for the challenge. Her goal was clear: to break out of her own bubble and win over undecided voters, particularly moderates. And that’s where she shone. While Trump repeated personal attacks and painted a picture of a “declining nation” without offering solutions, Harris managed to convey a message of hope and direction for the future.

But the question remains: are moderate voters really interested in proposals, or are demeanour and composure more decisive? Are voters tired of negative rhetoric and looking for more balanced leadership, or do Trump’s attacks still resonate on an emotional level? Harris’s great strength was her ability not only to respond to attacks but also to anticipate Trump’s predictable blows and turn them into opportunities to differentiate herself. In the end, the debate makes us wonder: is Harris’s strategy, focused on calmness and confidence, what undecided voters really want? No matter how much Harris dominated the debate, with a firm stance and a message of hope, winning the debate is just one battle. The real war is at the polls, where reason doesn’t always prevail, and where Trump, with his empty attacks, may still have strength. In the end, winning on stage doesn’t guarantee victory in the dirty game of politics.

• This article was originally written in Portuguese and published at CNN Portugal under the title "Por que Kamala Harris Venceu o Debate."

https://cnnportugal.iol.pt/debate/kamala-harris/uria-fancelli-por-que-kamala-harris-venceu-o-debate/20240912/66e30701d34e94b8290513f3