A Deeper Harris-Trump Discussion Is Needed – OpEd
By Dalia Al-Aqidi
The presidential debate between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris last week marked a pivotal moment in the 2024 election cycle. With more than 67 million viewers tuning in, it was clear that the stakes were high and both candidates had something to prove. For Trump, it was a chance to reaffirm his leadership credentials after a turbulent presidency and bid for a second term. For Harris, it was an opportunity to assert herself as a worthy successor to Joe Biden and a viable leader in her own right.
The debate at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia served as a litmus test for the candidates’ ability to engage voters in a highly polarized political environment. The discussion was marked by sharp exchanges, heated rhetoric and strategic maneuvering, particularly on Harris’ part. Her calculated jabs, like calling Trump “weak and wrong,” played into the broader Democratic narrative that Trump’s leadership had faltered on multiple fronts — from his handling of the economy to his foreign policy decisions.
Yet, while the vice president demonstrated a commanding presence on stage, the question that loomed large was whether this performance would translate into tangible electoral gains. Polls conducted immediately after the debate showed Harris outperformed Trump by a significant margin, with 63 percent of viewers declaring her the winner. But despite her strong showing, the polls also revealed a crucial reality: the debate had little effect on shifting voters’ loyalties. Only 4 percent of viewers indicated that they had changed their mind about who to vote for as a result of the debate, underscoring how entrenched partisanship has become.
This debate also highlighted a key issue: the role of the moderators and their selective fact-checking. Trump was repeatedly fact-checked during the debate, while Harris’ statements — some of which were equally questionable — were left unchecked. This discrepancy did not go unnoticed by Trump supporters, who saw it as evidence of media bias. One particularly glaring example was Harris’ comments on Trump’s statements following the 2017 Charlottesville protests, which she mischaracterized. Despite her misrepresentation, the moderators chose not to correct her on this point.
These omissions raise concerns about the media’s role in shaping public perception, especially in an environment where trust in institutions is already low. For Trump supporters, this perceived bias only reinforced the idea that their candidate is battling not just Harris but an entire political and media establishment that is aligned against him.
On the other hand, Harris’ supporters applauded her performance as evidence of her readiness to lead the country. Her ability to deflect her opponent’s attacks and stay on message was seen as a sign that she could maintain composure under pressure — a critical trait for any presidential candidate. However, this raises a broader question: If Kamala Harris is indeed as capable as she claims, why has she not already implemented the changes she is promising, given her current position as vice president?
In her current role, Harris has had the opportunity to influence major policy decisions over the past four years. From immigration reform to economic recovery, she has been at the forefront of the Biden administration’s efforts to address some of the country’s most pressing challenges. Yet, many of the issues she now pledges to tackle remain unresolved. Her promise to bring new leadership to the White House rings hollow when considering that she has already been in a position of significant power.
This paradox did not escape the attention of Trump, who repeatedly emphasized that Harris’ policy proposals lacked credibility. He pointed out that, despite her time in office, she has not pushed through the reforms she now advocates. Instead, Trump portrayed himself as the candidate who has consistently delivered on his promises, citing his economic record before the pandemic and his handling of international affairs as examples of his effectiveness.
In contrast to Harris’ more polished, prepared approach, Trump opted for a more unorthodox style, as he has in past debates. Instead of meticulously rehearsing responses, he focused on broader themes that resonate with his base, such as immigration, national security and economic recovery. In these areas, polls consistently show that voters trust Trump more than Harris, especially in key swing states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.
The dynamic between the two candidates was also reflected in the issues they chose to highlight — or avoid. Harris focused primarily on Trump’s character, attacking his business record and his handling of the presidency. The former president, in turn, questioned Harris’ competence and leadership, emphasizing her lack of experience on the national stage compared to his own. What was notably absent from the debate were discussions on significant recent events, such as the assassination attempt on Trump or Harris’ position on the Black Lives Matter protests in 2020.
The omission of these topics points to a broader issue with the debate format itself: it often favors style over substance. Candidates are rewarded for delivering sharp soundbites and emotional appeals rather than engaging in substantive discussions on policy. This trend is concerning because it leaves voters with little information about the candidates’ positions or future plans. Instead, the debate becomes a spectacle designed to entertain rather than inform.
The race remains tight as the election draws closer, particularly in battleground states, where polling shows a near-even split between the candidates. Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin will likely be decisive in determining the election’s outcome, much as they were in 2016 and 2020. Despite Harris’ strong debate performance, both candidates’ path to victory remains uncertain.
Ultimately, the true impact of this debate may not be felt until election day, when voters cast their ballots based not just on what the candidates have said but on how they made them feel. In politics, it is often the tone, the delivery and the demeanor that leave the most lasting impression. As history has shown, voters may forget the specifics of what was said during a debate, but they will always remember how the politician made their case. For Harris and Trump, the legacy of this debate will likely be shaped by how effectively each candidate communicated their vision for the country, not just the words they used.
As the nation reflects on last week’s debate, it becomes clear that a second debate is necessary, even though Trump has apparently ruled out that possibility. Though engaging, the first debate saw personal attacks and accusations overshadow any substantive discussions on the country’s critical issues. Voters deserve an in-depth conversation on policy beyond rhetoric, from the economy to healthcare and foreign affairs. A more focused and respectful debate would allow both candidates to clarify their positions and offer real solutions, ensuring the electorate can make an informed choice in this pivotal election.
•Dalia Al-Aqidi is executive director at the American Center for Counter Extremism.