Lt. Col. Rasmussen: Harris Gains Advantage in Trump Debate
Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris gained an advantage in the debate with her Republican opponent Donald Trump, as the latter was unable to offer anything new. Political scientist and retired US Army Lieutenant Colonel Earl Rasmussen told Lenta.ru.
In particular, the analyst noted that Trump had several opportunities to take the initiative in the debates, but did not take advantage of it. Rasmussen was “not impressed” by any of the candidates, but Harris, according to him, showed herself somewhat better than many expected.
Trump had a great opportunity, but I think he was dwelling too much on the past (…) He needed to let it go and move forward. He had the opportunity to articulate a vision for the future, but he didn’t (…) That said, Harris was surprisingly smooth in her delivery
The only area where the Republican candidate did better was foreign policy. “Trump seems more receptive to the issues and open to dialogue with all stakeholders, while Harris seems to be following the policies of the current administration, which are quite dangerous,” the expert concluded.
A similar point of view was expressed in a conversation with Lenta.ru by research assistant at Washington State University Alina Khamatdinova. She emphasized that from the very beginning of the debates, Trump could have refuted what Harris said, but he did not do so.
Trump had many chances to respond more strongly (…) For example, Harris did not answer the first question about the economy and only gave a detailed speech about supporting small businesses (…) But he did not say anything in response to this
Harris weaponized empathy
Khamatdinova added that the overall style of the debates matches the overall tone of both candidates’ campaigns. While Trump is trying to provoke a sense of fear in voters, Harris is trying to evoke a sense of empathy.
Harris is trying to use joy as a weapon against Trump. It’s actually a very effective strategy (…) It resonates with groups like women and young people. And we’ll see Trump lose a lot of their support
The researcher emphasized that the Democratic candidate followed this strategy throughout the debate round. In particular, this was evident in the debates on women’s right to abortion, where Harris accused Trump of wanting to ban them throughout the country.
When Harris called Trump out on something, she didn’t talk about fear, she appealed to empathy. Even on the abortion issue, she didn’t say Republicans would “force everyone to give birth in concentration camps.” She gave colorful examples of how specific people could suffer from such decisions.
Harris is often criticized for constantly changing positions. So during debates, instead of saying, “I’m a Democrat and I stand for this,” she simply told stories from her life without being tied to a specific ideology, the aide said.
At the same time, Trump’s strategy, who in the eyes of voters adheres more rigidly to his views, could also work, since “a sense of fear allows for the effective mobilization of the electorate,” Khamatdinova noted.
Debates have become political entertainment
Khamatdinova also recalled that most voters have their favorite before the debates and such events rarely change their intentions. In particular, she referred to a recent NPR poll that found only 30 percent of Americans would switch allegiances. The event’s main purpose, she says, is entertainment.
People watch debates not to make a decision, but because it is spectacular and interesting (…) Therefore, even if, for example, a Republican candidate says something absolutely stupid during a debate, his voter will be able to justify him and defend him in his own eyes
Rasmussen expressed a similar opinion, saying that the influence of the debates on the final vote should not be overestimated.
In many ways, debates do not affect elections. However, they do give candidates a chance to shape the future. Moreover, they often play a role in influencing independent voters or those who may be on the fence and may swing one way or the other.
However, the political scientist emphasized that none of the candidates presented a clear vision of the future at these debates. According to him, these debates leave open the question of what awaits Americans.
President Trump continued to dwell on the past, and Vice President Harris talked about the future, but she, too, did not provide a clear vision. In some cases, she indicated that things will continue on the current path, and that is not good.
Related materials:
Harris proposes new debate
The debate between the two candidates for the US presidency began on Wednesday, September 11, at 4:00 Moscow time and lasted 90 minutes. After lengthy discussions between the campaign headquarters about the venue, the ABC television channel took over the organization.
Before the conversation, the politicians broke the “tradition” that has been in place since 2016 and shook hands. However, almost immediately the parties began accusing each other of lying, with each statement of the opponent being criticized.
Key topics included discussions of women’s right to abortion, issues of democracy in the United States, and economic problems. The parties also touched on foreign policy, including the conflict in Ukraine. In particular, the Republican candidate emphasized that he wants an end to hostilities and reproached the ruling administration for its reluctance to contact Russian President Vladimir Putin. In response, Harris said that the Russian leader “would eat Trump for lunch.”
According to CNN, a few minutes after the debate ended, Harris’s campaign called on Trump to hold another debate. The former American leader responded that he would participate if the new round was held “on a fair platform.”
#Trump #Harris #Debates #Won #Discussed #Details #Latest #News