Highlights from the Harris-Trump Debate
The best moments, the worst moments, and the in-between
I’m Isaac Saul, and I’m the executive editor at Tangle where I write an independent, nonpartisan, subscriber-supported politics newsletter that summarizes the best arguments from across the political spectrum on the news of the day — then “my take.” For more political analysis like this, subscribe to Tangle here!
On Tuesday evening, Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump faced off for their first debate at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, PA. It was the second presidential debate of the 2024 campaign, but the first one since Harris replaced President Joe Biden as the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee. It was also the first face-to-face meeting of any kind between the two (when they came on stage, Harris walked over to Trump, shook his hand and introduced herself).
Today I’m going to try to cover as much ground as possible. To do that, I called in some help from Tangle editors Ari Weitzman and Will Kaback. Below, you’ll find some answers to a few broad questions about the debate, with responses from each of us throughout our take.
What moment is being over-discussed and doesn’t really matter?
Isaac: The exchange about the Haitian immigrants eating people’s dogs. The press is going to have a field day with this story, and Twitter already is. The upshot, basically, is that something very interesting is happening in Springfield, Ohio: Some 20,000 Haitian immigrants have legally migrated to a town of about 80,000 people. Those immigrants are both filling jobs and revitalizing the economy, while also stretching social services thin and driving up the costs of goods. One of them also crashed his car into a school bus, killing an 11-year-old boy. We discussed this story on the Sunday podcast and how it is a microcosm of immigration debates.
Amidst all this, there have been rumors that some of these immigrants are hunting local ducks or geese, and even taking people’s pets. One image of a person holding a goose went viral; commenters claimed it was a Haitian migrant from Springfield, though the photo was taken in another Ohio town and there’s been no confirmation the person is a Haitian migrant.
Anyway, Trump got stuck on something about how these people are eating local Ohioans’ pets. JD Vance has said he’s heard rumors like this from constituents, but there are very few specifics. The town’s spokesperson said there are no credible reports of this happening on the ground, just internet rumors. It all sounds pretty over the top and absurd, but it’s a distraction from real immigration issues towns like Springfield are facing. That is what the candidates should be talking about — not whether migrants are eating people’s cats or not.
What moments told us the most about each candidate?
Ari: Debates don’t have a rich history of being high-minded affairs, but they have not always been what they are now: a contest of who can speak the most, who can score a clicky soundbite, and who can fluster their opponent. In that kind of setting, moments where the candidates give us something to learn about them are precious. And for me, I think there are two moments, on abortion and immigration, that were very instructive about each candidate.
On abortion, Trump and Harris pushed each other to the brink of answering a direct question, and their non-answers told us a lot about each of them:
TRUMP: You should ask, will she allow abortion in the eighth month, ninth month, seventh month?
HARRIS: Come on.
TRUMP: Would you do that? Why don’t you ask her that question —
VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: Why don’t you answer the question, would you veto [a federal abortion ban]?
Harris and Trump both gave true answers that probably satisfied their voters: For Harris, she said that women don’t carry their pregnancies to term and then opt to get abortions when they aren’t faced with dangerous pregnancies or non-viable births. For Trump, he said that a federal abortion ban would never make it to his desk, because he wants it to be decided by the states and he’ll influence enough Republicans not to pursue that legislation.
Both are right, but here’s the quiet part out loud: Harris is ardently pro-choice, and almost definitely would not put any legal limitations on abortion in place. Trump’s record on abortion shows he points wherever the winds blow, and if Republican pro-life sentiment is strong enough to be able to propose and pass any kind of federal ban on abortions (with exceptions or after a certain number of weeks), he would probably sign it.
Both candidates know this.
But let’s get into the “cats and dogs” moment, which I think can tell us a lot. First off, Trump’s comment came in response to a topic where Harris is weak: immigration. It started with Harris fielding a question from David Muir about why the Biden-Harris administration waited until six months before the election to propose a bill addressing issues on the border. A fine question. Harris focused on that bill in her answer, and blamed Republicans and Trump for blowing it up. Not a direct response, but a serviceable answer politically. Then, she told viewers to go watch Trump’s rallies, saying he talks about how “windmills cause cancer” and that people leave out of “exhaustion and boredom.”
Trump spent the first part of his answer boasting about his rallies, then dragging Harris for hers having worse engagement, getting visibly worked up. He then ended by getting into a fact-check exchange with the moderators over whether or not illegal immigrants are eating cats and dogs in small-town Ohio.
It checked a lot of the boxes for Trump: insulting, boasting, engaging with fringe media, confronting mainstream media, and spanning many topics in one answer — all on an issue where he genuinely connects with tens of millions of voters.
Trump’s diversion wasn’t a lucky accident on Harris’s part — it was strategic. And it was predictable. If you’ll allow me to reach for a receipt:
Harris spun a question on her record into an attack on Trump, then spun her attack into an out-and-out goad. Essentially, what she said was, “I may not have the answer, but what would Donald Trump say about this if he gets angry?” It was the perfect example of her campaign strategy: Harris isn’t trying to convince moderates and undecided voters to like her; she’s trying to convince them that they should despise Trump.
What were Trump’s high and low points?
Will: Trump had a relatively strong start to the debate, and the first 15 minutes were spent squarely in his strike zone: attacking the Biden administration for inflation and promising he’d return the U.S. to its pre-Covid economy if reelected. Throughout, he landed a few of his best lines of the night about Harris changing her policy views (like “I was going to send her a MAGA hat” because Harris had moved toward his position on so many issues).
The former president also leaned into his foreign policy vision, offering a compelling answer on relations with Iran and how his policies had limited their financial and military power. He also emphasized his intention to end the wars in Ukraine and Gaza (though without going into any specifics as to how), which is a message that undoubtedly appeals to anti-war factions on the left and right (even as it alienates others on both sides).
For some in the pro-life and states-rights camps, Trump’s answer on abortion was coherent and reasoned, even though it included several falsehoods about Democrats’ stance on the issue. Trump said he supports whatever states decide on the issue and affirmed that he believes in exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother. If he sticks to that line, he may be able to diffuse some of the volatility of the issue for Republicans.
Unfortunately for Trump, the low points seemed to pile up as the debate went on. This will probably be remembered as the “taking the bait” debate (or maybe just, “DeBait”?), in which Trump was goaded into spending most of his time talking about his weakest issues.
What did he do when Harris dodged a question about immigration by bringing up the size of Trump’s rallies? Talked about the size of his rallies, then about migrants in Springfield eating dogs. What did he do when Harris took a question about the crime rate and used it to talk about Trump’s criminal conviction? Spent two minutes relitigating his grievances against his political opponents. What did he do after Harris suggested he lacked the temperament and grasp on reality to be president? Talked about how Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán — an authoritarian leader — is a “tough” and “smart” person who respects him. It was remarkable to watch Harris tee him up for an outburst over and over, and for Trump to fall for it every time. The fact that such a transparent strategy could be so effective is far more damaging than any individual comment Trump made.
What were Harris’s high and low points?
Ari: It’s hard to find a better example of the vice president showcasing her oratory skills and passion than when she got on a roll talking about the rights of women and abortion.
HARRIS: I have talked with women around our country. You want to talk about [repealing Roe] is what people wanted? Pregnant women who want to carry a pregnancy to term suffering from a miscarriage, being denied care in an emergency room because the health care providers are afraid they might go to jail and she’s bleeding out in a car in the parking lot? She didn’t want that.
But that quote is less important than when it came during the debate. Early on, Harris seemed a bit nervous and unable to find her footing. This moment set her straight. Not only that, but the optics were powerful: Harris turned to give her answer directly to Trump, who looked forward or down and away from Harris, giving the impression that he was being scolded.
Her pivots away from direct answers, as with the immigration response above and on the economy later, were frustrating — but they were politically savvy, so it’s hard to rate those tactics as among her “worst moments.” For me, her low point came in her rebuttal to Trump defending his actions on January 6. Harris said that Trump promised a “bloodbath” if he were to lose. Here’s why this was Harris’s low moment:
1) David Muir started to follow up, but Trump talked over him, saying “it was a term that related to energy, because they have destroyed our energy business.” Let’s be clear: That’s true, and Harris was taking this quote out of context in a way that’s a borderline lie. This is similar to her “very fine people” attack about Charlottesville, and we provided full fact-checks to both of those moments above.
2) Her quick jab essentially ended the exchange on January 6, a topic where the former president is very weak.
3) Because Trump talked over Muir, we’ll never know if he had a fact-check ready to give Harris. But the way events unfolded definitely played into the image of moderators holding Trump to account while Trump did all of Harris’s accounting himself.
What did you think of the moderators?
Isaac: Moderating is really hard. After live-streaming the debate last night, with my own commentary, I can tell you it is difficult to do so with live fact-checking. So I grade them on a curve; but I still thought they were below average. By far the biggest issue with Muir and Davis is that they didn’t fact-check Kamala Harris a single time while fact-checking Trump four times, which is remarkable (see our fact checks). Still, the talking point from the Trump campaign that it was a “3 on 1” debate is an exaggeration; it’s also similar to what Trump has said after every debate he’s ever participated in. It is one of his favorite things to do: Blame the media.
Here’s the truth, though: Trump bulldozed the moderators all night. He still spoke much more than Harris did, and they let him. Furthermore, the moderators were appropriately tough on Trump with fact-checks — they should have brought that same toughness to Harris, which they didn’t. But fact-checking Trump is easier, since his lies are often more obvious and blatant, while Harris’s are better rehearsed and require a closer eye.
One other thing worth noting: Trump was almost assassinated two months ago and the moderators didn’t bring it up a single time in the entire debate. Do you think if someone had nearly shot Kamala Harris in the head two months ago the moderators wouldn’t have asked about it at the debate?
Who won?
Isaac: Harris. Anyone telling you that Trump won or that she didn’t is blinded by partisan bias. I’m sorry. After the first 15 minutes (where she seemed pretty nervous and a little all over the place), she basically got the better of every exchange, or at least brought it to a stalemate. Focus group voters seemed to agree. Democrats raised record money during and after the debate, then Harris immediately asked for another one (while Trump demurred). Generally speaking, here is the tell on things like this: Every committed Trump supporter I know or follow was criticizing the moderators, and only a few said Trump won. Every moderate I follow or talk to said Harris won. And every liberal I follow or talk to said Harris destroyed him.
Fox News’s Brit Hume said “she was composed, she was prepared, she kept her cool, she saw advantages, she took them, she baited him successfully… she came out ahead in this in my opinion, no doubt.” Chris Wallace compared it to the thrashing Biden took in June. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) called it a disaster. This is not what happens when Trump wins.
It’s also worth calling out that Trump once again refused to admit he lost in 2020 (he did). This is, to a lot of Americans, his most dangerous rhetoric. A lot of moderates and Republicans will vote against him on this issue alone, and he dove headfirst back into the kind of “stolen election” claims that have turned so many voters off the last four years.
All that being said: I also think it is pretty likely this entire debate is out of the news cycle in 48 hours. I suspect it’ll move a few voters toward Harris, and while that will matter, this wasn’t the kind of debate (like Biden’s performance in June) that is going to fundamentally change the race.
If you liked this article, you can subscribe to Tangle here to receive free politics newsletters like this one Monday-Thursday and can sign up for a paid membership to receive special Friday editions.
