Kamala Harris’s debate strategy was clear from the start. Aggressively target Donald Trump with the aim of throwing him off balance. Her initial move—demanding a handshake—set the tone for the evening. Throughout the debate, Harris utilized personal jabs. And ridiculing laughter, managing to keep Trump on the defensive. This approach was widely praised in post-debate analysis, as it showcased her ability to dominate the stage. A role reversal from Trump’s past debates. However, this aggressive stance did not delve deeply into the policy issues that many voters are keen to understand. Making it more about performance than substance.
Voters Left Wanting More Policy HarrisÂ
While Harris outlined familiar campaign promises, such as tax cuts for small businesses and support for first-time homebuyers, she avoided addressing crucial topics like inflation and healthcare reform in detail. Many expected her to provide clarity on the Biden administration’s economic stance and policy vision, especially considering the pressing concerns around inflation, which consistently ranks as a top issue for voters. Yet, she left these topics largely unaddressed. Similarly, while she criticized Trump’s tariffs, she sidestepped why the Biden administration has maintained some of those same tariffs. This left voters without clear answers on major economic issues.
Trump’s Missed Chances HarrisÂ
Donald Trump, known for his assertiveness, appeared less prepared to tackle Harris’s direct attacks and missed key moments to outline his policies. He could have taken advantage of Harris’s policy contradictions, particularly on fracking and healthcare, but instead got derailed into discussions on immigration. Despite his strong focus on immigration—an issue central to his previous campaign—he failed to provide detailed plans for dealing with the millions of undocumented immigrants, sticking instead to broad claims without clear solutions.
A Debate Focused on Performance, Not Policy
From analyzing the debate one can learn more about how the candidates carry themselves and less about their agenda. For the most part, such statements by Harris and Trump dominated the debate yet did more in defining the different candidates rather than the policies each had on the economy, health or international relations. Each candidate was able to promote or explain their ideas as to what they would do to better the country but both went on the defensive and became combative. Constant denunciation of ‘bad immigration’ by Trump did nothing to showcase how he will handle the issue in his second term. And as bad, the moderator was poorly prepared for complicated queries such as those concerning the stumbling peace policies of Harris or Biden’s current strategies.
 A Debate Low on Substance
Ultimately, the Trump-Harris debate was more about spectacle than substance. While voters saw a clash of personalities, they were left with few concrete details about how either candidate would govern. Harris succeeded in rattling Trump, but both candidates missed opportunities to discuss pressing policy issues. At a time when voters are looking for solutions to real-world problems like inflation. Healthcare, and immigration, the debate offered more heat than light.
