The overall assessment of the televised debate between Donald Trump And Kamala Harris could be more complex than expected. On a general level, many maintain that the Democratic candidate would have triumphed: a thesis, this, also supported by the instant poll of CNN, according to which, for 63% of viewers, the vice president would have emerged victorious from the confrontation. However, be careful: because the general picture risks being much more complicated to decipher.
Without a doubt, the performance of Trump has disappointed expectations. The former president has often allowed himself to be provoked by his opponent, appearing nervous and out of focus on more than one occasion. Often and willingly, he has started to talk about uninteresting topics (such as the number of participants in his rallies) and, in some cases, has opened himself up to criticism from the Dems (such as when he said that Haitian immigrants in Ohio eat cats). Trump should have been more cool-headed, self-disciplined and, above all, should have focused more on the concrete issues of the campaign: issues, with respect to which – from inflation to illegal immigration – the Harris is objectively very weak. Although he was able to land some decent blows, the former president has missed too many opportunities. And he has not managed to electorally put his opponent out of the game as he could have. It follows that Trumpon Tuesday evening, failed to achieve his goal. Despite the objective bias of the moderators (who, very vigilant towards him, never pressed the Harris on the various inaccuracies he uttered), the former president made mistakes for which he has himself to blame above all.
That said, one wonders whether the Harris achieved its objective. Yes, because the fact that the tycoon did not win does not mean that the victory was for his opponent. Let’s go into detail. Without a doubt, as already mentioned, the Harris It was very effective in provoking Trump and in making him fall into the numerous traps that she gradually sowed during the confrontation. She has therefore successfully avoided that the tycoon could put her with her back to the wall on the main dossiers of the electoral campaign. On the other hand, however, the Harris On Tuesday she needed to hit two targets: shake off the image of a vague and pre-packaged candidate, as well as distance herself clearly from the figure of the unpopular Joe Biden. Unfortunately for her, the Democratic candidate failed to achieve either of these two fundamental objectives. To the uncomfortable questions (from the economy to the Gaza crisis) she responded with totally vague answers. Furthermore, the only moment in which she appeared truly nervous was when Trump he tied it with a double thread to Bidenalso recalling that the person directly concerned has been in power, as vice president, for almost four years.
In short, neither of the two contenders was able to hit their targets. This is why a debate, which could have been decisive in one direction or the other, probably will not be able to change the fundamentals of this electoral campaign. Moreover, even the polls and post-confrontation surveys paint a picture of complexity. If two Morning Consult and Ipsos polls give the Harris five points ahead at national level, a survey by Insider Advantage attributes to Trump one point lead in Michigan. YouGov, for its part, found that the vice president would have clearly won the debate but that, at the same time, her national lead (+1%) would have remained unchanged compared to before the confrontation. Not only that. The day after the televised duel, the New York Times reported that undecided voters were not very convinced by the performance of the Harris: in particular, they would have found it not only too smoky but also excessively similar to Biden. This proves what we were saying before: the fact that Trump Just because he didn’t win doesn’t mean his opponent won.
And here we come to the crucial point. To understand how a debate can influence the electoral campaign, one should not evaluate it according to the standards of a television show. Of course, it is right to look at the candidates’ communicative effectiveness, their ideas, their rhetorical ability, and so on. But this is not the heart of the matter. In fact, one must mainly try to “read” the debates, identifying with the crucial electoral fringes. In other words, how could a metalworker from Detroit or a small business owner from Pittsburgh have considered Tuesday’s debate? Probably a blue-collar worker from Michigan will think that the performance of Trump has been largely out of focus. But we are sure that this is enough to convince him to vote in favor of a Harris which, especially on economic issues, has proved to be very inconsistent? This is the question that should be asked, rather than relying on CNN’s instant polls, which objectively leave much to be desired. It may be a coincidence, after all, but, the day after the confrontation, even the CEO of Goldman Sachs, David Solomondistanced himself from a report, published by his own bank, which, a few days earlier, had spoken well of the proposals of the Harris.
Some say politics is all about communication. But that’s not the case. If your pockets are burdened by the harmful effects of inflation or you live in a small community that has come under pressure from excessive migration flows, you don’t vote based on the candidate’s communication effectiveness but on their credibility and the concreteness of their proposals. Seeing a candidate who, in addition to accepting debates and interviews only in “protected” contexts, has been vice president in office in an unpopular administration for almost four years, must not be exactly the best for many undecided voters. After all, in June 2022, inflation in the US reached its highest level since 1982 and, in recent years, the current US administration has relocated almost 20,000 migrants to Springfield: a town in Ohio with just 59,000 inhabitants. This doesn’t mean that Trump does not have its defects and its Achilles heels, let’s be clear (worrying signs, for him, are emerging in Georgia and North Carolina). It is significant, however, that, precisely in the working-class states of Rust Belt (Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania), the tycoon, from a polling point of view, is currently performing better than in September 2020 and September 2016. So, be careful. Trump missed a golden opportunity in Tuesday’s debate, shooting himself in the foot. But the Harrisfor his part, has not dispelled any of the many doubts that hover over the solidity of his candidacy. In short, it is not a given that Tuesday’s confrontation will be able to change the fundamentals of this electoral race.
