September 11, 2024 | 17:21
READING TIME: 3 minutes
Kamala Harris “definitely came out better” from the presidential debate in Philadelphia. “Hers is a clear victory, not a landslide”, while the former White House tenant, Donald Trump, “landed some blows” especially on the economy, but was “ridiculous” by claiming that migrants eat domestic animals. This is the analysis shared with Adnkronos by Andrew Spannaus, an American journalist and political analyst and author of the podcast ‘That’s America – Behind the Scenes of the United States’ on Radio 24, according to whom the Democratic candidate “achieved her goal of appearing credible as a future president” and at the same time managed to “unnerve” Trump, who gave “a terrible show” and responded “in a way that the public doesn’t like”.
According to the author of, among others, the book ‘Post-global America: Trump, the coronavirus and the future’, Harris’s result is important because many voters had doubts about “her ability to be presidential” and claimed not to know her well. “She has passed this test, which will not make her gain a lot in the polls, but even if she were to gain a little she can put herself in a position to have an advantage”, continues Spannaus, underlining that the November elections will be fought and there are “big question marks” about the reliability of the polls in some key states where Trump has been underestimated in the past. In any case, “Harris can continue her campaign with greater confidence”.
Among the weaknesses highlighted during the face-to-face meeting by the Democratic candidate, according to the political analyst, there is a stuttering start and “the usual problem of not offering a convincing version of how the current situation would change” in addition to some specific initiatives for limited segments of the population.
“On the other hand, she has managed to belittle Trump, to treat him as a frivolous person and to do it effectively without appearing arrogant, this is important for her”, continued Spannaus, according to whom the tycoon for his part “has scored some blows on inflation and the economy” by asking why Harris should do something different from the last three and a half years. For the analyst, in any case, Trump has confirmed his weak point which is that of “exaggerating everything and being inconsistent. During the debate he focused on immigration with the ridiculous accusation that migrants eat dogs and cats and for this he is not very credible”.
One aspect of the debate highlighted by Spannaus during the interview is that the two candidates have shown that they are “in agreement” on some major issues: for example, on the new economic policy and on competition with China, what Trump and Harris have said goes “in the same direction”. On Ukraine, moreover, “Trump warned as he usually does about the third world war and promised that he will put an end to the war, but Harris also wanted to emphasize that American soldiers are not engaged in any war at the moment, showing that she understands the importance for the electorate of not participating in conflicts abroad”.
Finally, on Taylor Swift’s endorsement of Harris, Spannaus believes that “it won’t move a mass of votes, but it can have a significant, tangible effect, if the Swifties are pushed to vote and there is a greater turnout of young people. If Taylor Swift pushes in this direction the numbers are significant so, even if it’s tens of thousands of people, this would represent an added value for Harris”.
#HarrisTrump #Spannaus #Clear #Dem #Victory #Tycoon #Economy #Ridiculous #Migrants