Kamala Harris-Donald Trump debate: ‘Game of Inches’ to continue

Presidential debates in the United States are hallmark events of the election cycle, providing a critical platform for candidates to outline their visions and priorities on both domestic and foreign policy issues. These debates offer voters an unscripted and candid glimpse into the policies and personalities of potential presidents. The first debate between the Republican nominee, Donald Trump, and the Democratic nominee, Kamala Harris, was no exception, as both candidates tackled pressing issues such as abortion, immigration, the economy, US engagement abroad, the ongoing crisis in the Middle East, and the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
Both Harris and Trump entered the debate with the race in a virtual dead heat, underscoring the high stakes of the night. Contrary to the theatrics often associated with modern debates, this encounter was marked by substantive discussions on key policy issues, with moderators pressing both candidates on topics like abortion and fracking—areas where each had seemingly shifted from previously held positions. Trump, often characterized by his blunt and off-the-cuff style, displayed a level of restraint that surprised many observers.
A coin toss granted Trump the final word of the debate, which he used to challenge Harris on her administration’s record, questioning why the Biden-Harris administration had not already implemented the policies she was advocating. This closing remark was a strategic attempt to cast doubt on Harris’s ability to deliver on her promises as a president if she gets elected.
Harris and Trump each entered the debate with unique advantages and vulnerabilities. Harris had initially faced scepticism about her ability to galvanise the Democratic base, but her campaign gained momentum with strong fundraising efforts and improved polling numbers following her nomination. Trump, despite narrowing the polling gap, carried significant baggage into the debate, including multiple legal challenges, allegations of misconduct, and a well-documented pattern of misleading statements. His history with controversial remarks and actions, especially in the presence of a female opponent, added another layer of scrutiny and anticipation going into the debate.
Throughout the debate, Trump aimed to portray immigration as a critical crisis, asserting extreme and unverified claims, such as suggesting that illegal immigrants were causing societal decay to the point of consuming neighbours’ pets. These statements underscored his strategy of stoking fear and rallying his base around hard-line immigration policies.
The debate underscored that immigration, reproductive rights, and the economy are central issues driving both campaigns as they approach the final stretch of the election. Harris emphasised her “opportunity economy” agenda, aimed at uplifting the American middle class, though her messaging has since been criticized as lacking specificity. Trump, meanwhile, focused on economic nationalism, including tariffs intended to penalise China, a stance that resonates with a segment of his supporters who favour protectionist policies. Harris countered the validity of Trumpian economics by citing studies by economists, including from Trump’s own Wharton School, which suggest that raising tariffs alone may not be a sustainable strategy for any economy.
On the issue of abortion, the candidates presented starkly contrasting visions. Harris reiterated her commitment to women’s rights and reproductive freedom, framing her stance as an unambiguous defence of personal choice. In contrast, Trump, who had previously been aligned with calls for strict abortion restrictions, appeared to soften his position, distancing himself from more extreme proposals like a national abortion ban. This shift suggests a strategic recalibration aimed at broadening his appeal in a race where suburban women voters could be pivotal.
As the campaigns refocus on critical swing states, the economic outlook looms large. Both candidates are keenly aware that voters’ perceptions of the economy could significantly influence their chances. The debate reflected how pivotal issues like healthcare, immigration reform, and inflation will shape the narrative in the remaining weeks.
Despite moments of rhetorical excess, such as Trump’s dystopian comments about immigration and his outlandish claims about abortion practices in Democratic states, the debate signalled a turn toward more serious and balanced discourse. For Harris, the debate was an opportunity to solidify her position as the rightful heir to the Democratic leadership after Biden, even if it fell short of a transformative moment that could decisively alter the race dynamics. As California Governor Gavin Newsom aptly noted, this election may well be a “game of inches in the swing states.”
The first debate between Harris and Trump highlighted the deep divisions and high stakes of the 2024 election. While both candidates avoided major gaffes, the lack of detailed policy proposals from either side left some voters seeking more clarity. Going into the debate, some polls suggested that voters wanted to know more about Kamala Harris. It remains to be seen if that expectation is fulfilled. Real-time fact-checking and the scrutiny in the debate revealed the nuances and complexities that will continue to be debated over the next 50 days. However, the Republicans have cried foul that it was a 3-on-1 debate with fact-checking only applied to Donald Trump, while Harris walked away unchecked on manufacturing job numbers.
Ultimately, the debate showcased the evolving strategies of both campaigns. Trump’s unexpected composure and Harris’s focus on policy over personality suggested that the remaining weeks of the campaign would see both sides honing their messages in a bid to narrow the margin of error in this tightly contested race. With key battleground states likely to decide the outcome, every speech, rally, and policy announcement will be critical as both candidates vie for the support of an increasingly polarised electorate.
Vivek Mishra is fellow, ORF’s Strategic Studies Programme. The views expressed are personal