Kamala Harris cleans Donald Trump’s clock in American presidential candidates debate — no debate about it

By the time the highly anticipated candidates debate in Philadelphia on 10 September, and broadcast globally on television and online channels, had wrapped up, there was no dispute over the outcome. The former prosecutor dismantled the felon.

Vice-President Kamala Harris went into this contest intent on introducing herself to any Americans who still say they don’t know enough about her, as well as proving beyond reasonable doubt that she must be seen as legitimate presidential timber. 

Former president Donald Trump had the task of proving he was still at the top of his game, and that he could set out a sustained, convincing, even crushing criticism of Harris – but, crucially for his aides and handlers, that he would do this without defaulting into his shticks of self-pity and conspiracy thinking.

Applying those metrics, and despite the fact that polling continues to reflect a view Trump would be the better economic policy manager, in this debate at least, it was clear the former president thoroughly lost the plot. Metaphorically at least, he came close to an oft-predicted display of spontaneous combustion. Within minutes it was clear Harris was loaded for bear, with words guaranteed to get under Trump’s notoriously thin skin in order to goad him into self-destructive, conspiratorial nastiness. 

And so her words did just what she planned. As the debate progressed, more and more Trump resembled the crazy uncle you feel compelled to invite to family dinners, but to whom everyone is forcefully warned not to give a second cocktail, and to keep him away from the good china, the children and the pets.

As Daniel Drezner described it in his newsletter the next day: “At the debate, Harris revealed that she could manipulate Trump equally effectively – by bringing up things that she knew would cause him to lose his cool. And good Lord did he oblige.

I lost count of how many times she did this, but they include:

• Mentioning that people leave Trump’s rallies halfway through because they were bored;
• Bringing up “the late, great John McCain”;
• Mentioning the endorsement of the [Dick and Liz] Cheneys and the 200 other Republicans;
• Mentioning that economists at the Wharton School – Trump’s alma mater - pooh-poohed his economic plan; and
• Saying: “Donald Trump was fired by 81 million people, and he’s clearly having a hard time processing that.”

“The result was that Trump, who had bouts of incoherence in the June debate [with then candidate Joe Biden, seeking re-election], melted down in September. Being fact-checked by the ABC moderators did him no favours either.”

On that point, ABC News’ David Muir and Linsey Davis behaved far better than most moderators have in debates; forcibly but politely pushing Trump into answering the questions being asked and pointing out where there was no evidence to support a claim or when Trump claimed something opposite of what was true – as with the national crime rate – or in Trump’s confusing answers to questions about women’s reproductive rights.

Regarding economic policy, Trump resolutely hugged two ideas. The first was that a massive tariff increase would somehow, magically, trigger economic growth and punish nations like China taking advantage of America, even as he seems not to understand that tariffs are a tax paid by customers – in the US – rather than a cost inflicted on the producer. Harris correctly called it out as a kind of national sales tax. Perhaps none of Trump’s classes at the Wharton School of Business ever included trade or fiscal policy? 

Trump’s other all-encompassing idea, repeated ad nauseam, was that millions and millions of illegal immigrants are pouring across America’s borders from foreign prisons, mental institutions and insane asylums (his words, not mine). This was partly so Democrats could ramp up their votes with those illegal immigrants, and, inevitably, those people were stealing jobs from black and brown people – contributing to an imminent collapse of America’s society and economy. 

That morphed into one of the strangest things I have heard since I watched the first presidential debate of the 20th century between Richard Nixon and John Kennedy. This was the tale that Haitian immigrants (legal ones) invading Springfield, Ohio, are stealing pets – puppies and kitties – to cook and eat them. Really. 

This is despite the fact that reporters chasing this rumour have contacted the town’s mayor and police chief who report no missing or rotisserie Fidos or Plutos. And he seized on this culinary tall tale more than once in the 90-minute debate. One participant in a CNN focus group, a minister in Erie, Pennsylvania, called this out for what it self-evidently was: the othering of foreigners by culinary means as a clumsy appeal to black and brown voters and citizens.

Meanwhile, as the debate moved on to international affairs, the battle lines were drawn over the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Middle East conflict, the messy withdrawal from Afghanistan and global respect (or the lack of it) for the US. Trump repeated his oft-said boasts he could settle the Ukrainian and Mideast conflicts easily, snap, just like that – and had he been president when they were about to break out, they never would have because other nations and leaders fear him. 

Read more: Letter from DC — Kamala Harris is spoiling for a fight, and she’s coming for Trump

To prove this, he said Hungary’s Viktor Orbán (the right-wing, anti-democratic but elected strongman) was a fan because Trump was also a strong leader. Interestingly, we never heard any mention of North Korea’s Kim Jong-un, the same man with whom Trump had exchanged those infamous “love letters”. 

Trump attempted to denigrate Harris, saying – falsely – she had snubbed Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu during his most recent Washington visit (although she did not attend Netanyahu’s speech in Congress). Further, it was her and Biden’s fault that the withdrawal of the final contingent of American military personnel from Kabul three years ago led to 13 needless deaths and the loss of billions of dollars in military gear. Harris parried by describing how the disaster evolved out of negotiations Trump himself had conducted with the Taliban freeing 5,000 Taliban fighters.

Read more: Takeaways from the Harris-Trump presidential debate

Underlying her entire appearance, Harris argued with real passion that she, unlike her opponent, was a candidate from a new generation of leaders who will embrace optimism about the future. Her administration would continue building a stronger middle class and would enhance the country’s trajectory for the future. Trump, by contrast, as he has in the past, argued that a Harris administration might well continue the growing failures of the nation and perhaps even World War 3. 

For those wondering, China – the nation many analysts say poses the greatest threat to America’s world standing – barely got a mention, save for threats of still higher tariffs against Chinese manufacturers. It will surprise no one that Africa was not mentioned.

In a development that may be exceptionally helpful to Harris, just as the debate was ending, Taylor Swift issued a social media message endorsing Harris’s candidacy. If she wins, it is a good guess we know who will be singing at her inauguration. DM