After hearing one presidential candidate shout that Haitian immigrants are eating the dogs, voters immediately determined the winner of the presidential debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. In quick fashion, CNN published a flash poll the next day which recorded the opinions of both Harris and Trump voters on who they thought won the debate. The results showed that 63% of viewers believed Harris had outperformed Trump, and it seems that many took this as a sign that Trump’s campaign was doomed. However, the real question is whether these results are meaningful in the greater context of the election.
Presidential debates are considered to be benchmarks. They are not the sole determinants of the outcomes of elections. Rather, they serve as an opportunity for political candidates to prove themselves. Joe Biden’s abysmal performance is still fresh in a majority of voters’ memories, which served as a catalyst for Harris to overtake his position as the Democratic candidate in the 2024 presidential election. Unlike Biden, Harris proved she means business in the most recent presidential debate. Steve Shepard, a staff member of the news outlet Politico, collaborated with others to write the following in a review of the debate:
“Harris did clear an important bar,” Shepard said. “A disappointing debate performance threatened to reverse her standing after six weeks of momentum. That didn’t happen.”
Both voters and analysts have determined that Harris has had a decisive victory against Trump ever since September 10th. However, Harris is not out of the woods just yet; BBC news reports that the debate was largely surface level, being composed of punchlines and insults. In short, it failed to help voters gain an understanding of where Harris stands on policy.
The election ultimately comes down to what policies voters mark in the ballot box during November. Considering that Harris is a relatively new candidate compared to Trump, the debate may have been a missed opportunity to capitalize on clarifying her campaign.
In a much more respectful fashion, the debate between vice presidential candidates JD Vance and Tim Walz was infinitely more productive than the mud-slinging contest that was the Harris-Trump debate. The Associated Press reports that in contrast, the VP debate was largely focused on policy-heavy discussion. Topics of housing regulation, energy policy, and leadership positions all surfaced in the debate. CNN reports that 83% of voters thought the debate was generally positive, with 41% saying Walz won, 42% saying Vance won, and the remaining 17% claiming the debate was a tie. The consensus was that both candidates are ready to take office if need be and represent a metaphorical light at the end of the tunnel. The debate served as a statement that American politics is not doomed.
Presidential debates are a useful tool that can be utilized by any candidate on the stage, and that continues to ring true in the 2024 election cycle. This race will undoubtedly be close, and the debates between all parties involved have showcased the potential for candidates to shine in office. Whether or not they will truly predict the results of the election remains to be seen. Only the voters can tell us come November.
