Kamala Harris’ strategy won

Kamala Harris has achieved her goal: to constantly remind viewers of what Donald Trump did or said in the past. And what a new Republican presidency would mean. She has led something definitive in a debate: the consistency of a strategy. And hers has been more effective. She has managed to show Donald Trump as erratic – at times – and almost always on the defensive. Trump’s blows seemed old and predictable. Harris’s were fresher and more effective.

The debate format has favoured Harris. Most of the time we have had a split screen (being able to see both faces, whether they were speaking or listening). Harris’s expressiveness and gestures have had a notable prominence, reflecting concern, disbelief, weariness, embarrassment or mocking sarcasm. The meme of the night is hers and very funny, too. She has also conveyed self-confidence with her powerful and contagious smile. Faced with this emotional display and non-verbal communication, Donald Trump’s hieratic and stiff face has seemed a perfect target for his rival’s attacks or questions.

The format has also allowed the best journalism to shine. We have gone from moderators to incisive journalists, ready to question or demonstrate, live, Trump’s fallacies. They did two fact checks Trump was asked live. The first was when he said that illegal immigrants were eating the pets of Springfield, Ohio; and the second was when he claimed that Harris went to negotiate with Vladimir Putin three days before the invasion of Ukraine. “As I said, today we are going to hear a lot of lies,” the Democrat took the opportunity to say after one of the corrections. Trump did not answer any of the direct questions – “easy questions,” the journalists told him, leaving a gap that Harris always used next.

Harris has had a broader conceptual scope, more registers, more data and more proposals. She has identified her audiences better and has adequately managed her strength: “I am part of a new generation that wants to turn the page and not go back to the past.” Trump, on the other hand, has used his resources based on slogans and a priori assumptions, with fewer dialectical resources and fewer surprises. She has made us think and imagine… And when he spoke, we saw what she was pointing out to us.

A great final minute by Kamala Harris explaining her vision, her values ​​and her proposals capped her effective performance. She offered hope. Donald Trump could only use the constant refrain of the “nation in decline” and finish off the accusation – when he had already lost the debate – of “why hasn’t he done everything he proposes?” But there was no time left. He offered fear.

Harris got away and flew over; and Trump was left in the mud from which he could never get out. Harris ended up as he started: he managed to take the initiative from the first minute, when he surprised Trump by going to greet him, going to look for him, going for him. The best, the most direct, the most prepared won. Harris seemed like a new and superior opportunity against a candidate who we already know what he offers. “Americans deserve something better,” said the Democrat. And she managed to prove it.