Who won Kamala Harris and Donald Trump’s first debate? Our panel reacts

For the entirety of this debate, Donald Trump never once uttered Kamala Harris’s name, a sign of enormous disrespect. What he did do was try to shush Harris with a “quiet, please”, silence her with an “I’m talking now. Does that sound familiar?” (an apparent reference to her famous line during the vice-presidential debate four years ago), and brazenly state that President Biden “hates her. He can’t stand her.”
Harris smiled confidently at the ludicrous barbs.
Meanwhile, Trump reacted to his own statement that he lost the 2020 election “by a whisker” first by stating: “I said that?” and then by saying he was “being sarcastic”. Asked about his ideas for healthcare for Americans, he replied with: “I have concepts of a plan.” Challenged on his role in the January 6 attack on the Capitol, he responded with: “I had nothing to do with that except they asked me to make a speech.”
Trump was flailing. Under pressure, he took no responsibility for his past actions and instead threw invective and invented facts as he went along.
Harris prevailed. She came out swinging, pointed her attacks on Trump’s record, and presented a future that wasn’t based on fear but on opportunity. She intelligently called Trump “someone who would rather run on a problem rather than fixing the problem”.
But her policy positions were also clearly leaning to the right of the Democratic agenda. She called for many more agents patrolling the border (rather than real and comprehensive immigration reform), defended the right to abortion by extreme examples of injury (such as incest) rather than an ordinary woman’s right to choose, and offered no policy change for Palestinians beyond “working round the clock” for a ceasefire. In other words, more of the same.
Harris won the debate. Her performance and ideas are better. But many of those ideas, shared by both parties, need rethinking.
This debate was a defining moment for the American people, as the stark contrast between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump was laid bare. From the start, Harris commanded the stage, demonstrating poise, preparation, and a clear vision for the future of the country. She didn’t just introduce herself to Trump – she reintroduced herself to the American public as a strong, competent leader ready to serve as commander-in-chief.
In contrast, Trump appeared undisciplined and unhinged, offering a reminder of the chaotic leadership that defined his time in office. His performance highlighted a lack of preparation and an inability to engage thoughtfully on critical issues. While Harris sought to uplift and empower, Trump resorted to divisive rhetoric, further alienating a nation in need of healing.
The American people witnessed the difference between a steady hand and reckless impulsiveness. The choice could not be clearer; according to Trump himself, he has no plan. She has a plan and represents a new generation of leadership moving us forward. As the vice-president says: we are not going back.
This debate will not be anywhere near as consequential as the last one, between Biden and Trump, which reoriented an election overnight. It remains to be seen how much a debate like this can move voters. That said, Kamala Harris won easily. Trump was at his most narcissistic, impulsive and racist, lashing out incoherently.
In the past, while he was, of course, narcissistic, impulsive and racist, he was at least relentlessly on message, setting the tempo of the debate with attacks and forcing his opponents to adopt his framing. With this debate, he was on the defensive and seemed angry and confused throughout. Much of the credit for this goes to Harris, who clearly prepared well and expertly baited Trump into his worst areas. Every time the question was about an issue where Trump has a polling advantage over Harris, like the economy, foreign policy and the Biden administration’s record, she would sneak in a line about him and his past that he couldn’t help but chase.
His most memorable lines were mostly notable for being bizarre and nonsensical. All in all, Trump showed who he was: a rightwing authoritarian, and a confused and incompetent one at that.
This was a deeply sad debate. Harris didn’t sketch out much in the way of a governing agenda, and the aspects she did expound on, like her policies on the border, fracking and Israel, were bad, politically and morally. Instead of a debate about policy and plans, what we saw was a debate about Trump, with Harris dancing around her own record and policies to skillfully prosecute the case against Trump instead. It’s a dark time for the country when the choice we are presented is a referendum on a dangerous narcissist. Hopefully, Americans will choose not to put Trump back in the White House, but no matter how bad his performance, he still has a serious chance of winning.
Kamala Harris won the evening and the debate. By the end, the betting markets had shifted back to a coin-toss. Trump no longer led. The vice-president stayed on offense. He flailed and scowled all night. Trump garnered the majority of speaking time, but it did him no favor.
The former president attacked Harris over immigration and inflation. He labeled her a Marxist, and bragged about the size of his rallies. He paid tribute to Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, and accused immigrants of chowing down on Fido: “They’re eating the pets of the people that live there.”
Harris chivied Trump on abortion and democracy and lambasted him over China and Covid. “He actually thanked President Xi for what he did during Covid,” she said. “When we know that Xi was responsible for not giving us transparency about the origins of Covid.”
Harris played prosecutor, Trump self-pitying victim. She reminded him of his rap-sheet, January 6, and his affinity for the Proud Boys: “‘Stand back and stand by.’”
The election is a footrace. Trump and Harris appear tied in Pennsylvania while the Democrats hold narrow leads in Michigan and Wisconsin. Post-convention excitement recedes. The attempt on Trump’s life is history. Brat summer has yielded to political trench warfare. Election day is less than two months away, in politics an eternity.
Have you ever wondered whether men might be too emotional to be president? Because Donald Trump was extremely emotional on Tuesday night. And by “emotional”, I mean unhinged.
In contrast, Kamala Harris was in full-on prosecutor mode and pushed all the convicted felon’s buttons. She mocked the size of Trump’s rallies – a sore spot – and he immediately unraveled. Lacking serious policy points, he clutched at bigoted straws. He referenced a wild and unsubstantiated rumor about immigrants eating dogs. He said: “Prices are quadrupling and doubling!” And he called Harris a “communist”.
After a slightly shaky start, Harris dominated the debate. Her responses about abortion were a particular high point. Many of us watching were weeping with relief it wasn’t Joe Biden at the podium, stumbling over sentences about one of the most important issues on the ballot.
Harris wasn’t the only star. Though they got a little more lenient towards the end, the ABC moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis did a brilliant job fact-checking in real time, calling Trump out on his lies about Democrats wanting to execute babies after they’re born. I hope CNN’s Dana Bash and Jake Tapper, who did a horrendous job “moderating” the June debate between Trump and Biden, were taking notes.
I would have been mostly thrilled by Harris’s performance had it not been for her pathetic and disrespectful response on the carnage in Gaza. She gave no indication of how she would de-escalate the destruction of Gaza, just kept paying empty lip service to a ceasefire. It’s been 11 months; if Biden-Harris seriously wanted a ceasefire, there would be one by now. It’s clear that, when it comes to Gaza, Harris is a new and wholly unimproved version of Biden.
Joe Biden set a very low bar – the president’s June debate performance was so disastrous that it catapulted him out of the race and Kamala Harris into his seat. All Harris had to do on Tuesday night to be celebrated by the media was to occupy it and string together sentences generally recognized as English. She managed to do that.
However, her success was muted. Harris was at her best when she was able to portray Trump as an out-of-touch elite who doesn’t care about ordinary Americans, including his base. Yet rather than continuing that line of thought and painting him as part of a wider establishment pursuing policies against the interests of working people, she undermined her position by celebrating the endorsements of figures like Dick Cheney and John McCain’s son Jimmy, and the “sacred grounds” of Camp David.
Trump’s 2016 version of populism focused heavily on the economic grievances facing American workers. His 2024 version is far more unhinged – lies about the election, lies about immigrants eating pets, lies about abortion laws, lies too many to recount. That makes it very easy to take the safe route and draw contrasts between a competent establishment politician and a dangerous would-be tyrant. But I worry that without speaking to justified anger in the country, Harris is setting herself up to be Hillary Clinton 2.0.