Observers in the United States and abroad have had mixed assessments of the outcome of last week’s Trump-Harris debate. But neither candidate has been claimed to have won a landslide victory, unlike the June 27 debate, which exposed the mental weakness of candidate Joe Biden, who subsequently withdrew from the presidential race.
It is noteworthy that the biases of some observers and media outlets contributed to their assessments, which, as such, seemed more like wishful thinking. This applies to those who said Harris outperformed and those who thought Trump performed better. But when we put aside any bias and consider what happened in the debate with some impartiality, we arrive at the conclusion that it ended in a tie between the two sides. This conclusion is based on three facts:
First, neither candidate offered anything new from an objective standpoint, nor added anything worth noting, nor presented a clear vision for the policy he would follow if he won. Consequently, we did not find the outlines of a program, whether “Republican” or “Democratic,” for the next four years starting on January 20, 2025. Each of the two competitors was more preoccupied with trying to expose the weaknesses of his competitor than he sought to show his strengths. It was a mutual challenge that deprived the debate of its most important function, which is to inform voters of what they do not know about the way each of the two candidates thinks, and the details related to positions that they had previously announced.
Harris, for example, has not explained how she will raise the massive resources needed for the broad social spending she promises in most of her speeches to attract workers and low-income earners to her side. Trump, for example, has not explained his plan to end the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, which he has repeatedly said he could end “immediately” and said would not have happened if he were in power.
The second fact is that both candidates seemed at times during the debate to be “robots” repeating pre-programmed words, which took away the liveliness of the debate. This “robotic” performance can perhaps be explained by excessive training before the debate, as each of them spent days preparing for it. This was not limited to listening to advice from assistants and advisors, but also included practical training based on simulation in a studio similar to the one in which the debate was held.
The third fact is that the debate was actually conducted between the candidates’ aides and advisers rather than between the candidates themselves. Their performance was dominated by their commitment to what was asked of them. For example, Trump appeared unusually calm, avoiding the personal attacks that have been seen in recent weeks to alienate some voters who might be closer to his positions. Harris also over-extended herself from the Biden administration, seeking to minimize the impact of the Trump campaign’s emphasis on her having been in the administration since January 2021, and not trying to do anything she is now promising.
So the race will be intense in the remaining few weeks, and the outcome will depend on voting in a few counties in the seven swing states where this race is intense.
#draw #ignites #competition