Kamala Harris came into Tuesday’s presidential debate with a deliberate strategy: to dominate and destabilise Donald Trump.
Her assertive opening act involved walking confidently across the small Philadelphia stage to offer a handshake. This gesture marked her bold attempt to take charge, a significant move against an opponent known for commanding such platforms.
Since the debate, both political analysts and media outlets have extensively praised and scrutinized Harris’s tactics.
They’ve highlighted her jabs and taunts at Trump, her scornful laughter as she launched personal attacks and observed his agitated responses.
The attention this debate received stems from Harris’s effective strategy, as initial polls post-debate showed her scoring a significant win.
Though history reminds us that such debate victories don’t always predict electoral success in November, it was nonetheless notable to see Harris aggressively challenge Trump.
Yet, despite the effectiveness of her approach, it remained focused on superficial elements like body language, facial expressions, and witty comebacks.
Prior to the debate, polls showed that voters were interested in more information about Harris’s positions on critical issues.
Her campaign has been criticized for being light on substantial policy details. Despite Trump’s better-established policy positions, voters remain eager to understand his specific plans if reelected.
Overall, the debate didn’t provide much clarity on their prospective policies in office.
Harris did repeat her previously mentioned economic plans—proposing a $6,000 child tax credit for infants, a $50,000 tax cut for small businesses, and $25,000 to assist first-time homebuyers with deposits.
She argued that Trump’s proposed tariffs on imports would lead to increased consumer prices. These points, however, were not new revelations from her campaign.
Harris avoided directly answering when asked why the Biden administration, where she has served nearly four years, maintained some tariffs initiated by Trump. She also did not detail her approach to combating inflation, a major voter concern.
Trump, aiming to exploit Harris’s apparent vulnerability on economic issues (labeling her economic plans as Marxist), drifted off-topic to discuss illegal immigration, claiming it severely harms the economy.
This segment underscored the debate’s overall nature—plenty of confrontation but little insight into substantial policy issues.
