US Vice President Kamala Harris and former president Donald Trump clashed in a fiery presidential debate last night, with Harris frequently putting Trump on the defensive. With sharp critiques and direct jabs, she repeatedly forced Trump to defend his record and past behaviour.

The headlines speak for themselves today. “Harris Puts Trump on Defensive in Fierce Debate”, reads the New York Times. “Harris keeps Trump on defensive”, offers the Washington Post. “Harries tried to throw Trump off his game. He repeatedly took the bait”, CNN insists.

The through line of last night’s US presidential debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump seems to be that she laid out bait that he took, time and time again.

With only eight weeks until election day, Harris and Trump tried to make their case to voters in a debate that lasted 90 minutes. Meeting for the first time onstage in Philadelphia, the candidates addressed flashpoints including inflation, abortion, immigration and foreign policy.

Harris strategically deployed pointed remarks, accusing Trump of belittling people and stating that foreign leaders were laughing at him. Trump, visibly unsettled at times, often found himself rebutting rather than attacking. “She won every round. Trump never landed a punch,” historian and former adviser to Ronald Reagan Bruce Bartlett wrote on X.

Marco Vicenzino, a geopolitical expert, echoed this sentiment, telling FRANCE 24 it was “the most definitive evening of Harris’s political career”.

“Trump allowed Harris to get under his skin,” he added.

Immigration

During a question on immigration, Harris packed a hefty punch when she went on the offensive and mocked Trump rallies, suggesting attendees leave early “out of exhaustion and boredom”. The jab by Harris at the start of the section was, by any measure, a success. Instead of addressing the topics brought up by the moderators, including some Trump typically views as his political strengths, he ended up focusing heavily on the entertainment aspect of his rallies.

His retort then veered into unfounded claims, such as suggesting Haitian immigrants in an Ohio town were stealing and eating people’s pet cats and dogs. Trump also slandered immigrants in an earlier response on the cost of living and inflation, blaming them for destroying the economy. He claimed people were “pouring in” from “prisons and jails, from mental institutions and insane asylums” for taking jobs that are “occupied right now by African Americans and Hispanics, and also unions”.

Harris countered with an impassioned defence of foreign contributions to the US economy, pointing out the importance of migrant labour in essential sectors such as healthcare, agriculture, and technology. Describing Trump’s portrayal of immigrants as “fear-mongering”, she criticised his administration’s handling of the southern border and particularly the family separation policy.

To wrap up her arguments, Harris employed a strategic move that appealed to both progressives, who favour more lenient immigration policies, and moderates looking for sensible reforms: she emphasised her stance on transforming the immigration system to be more humane and contrasted her vision with Trump’s focus on border security and deportations. She recalled that the former president had killed a bipartisan bill she supported to strengthen security at the Mexico border. “He’d rather campaign on a problem than solve it,” she scoffed.

Economy

US polling suggests the public is disappointed by how the Biden administration has handled the economy, especially inflation. But Harris used the flashpoint to focus on Trump’s tariffs, dubbing them “Trump sales tax”, and mentioned Project 2025, a controversial plan for a future Republican administration that the former president has repeatedly denied having links to.

“Trump can deny any knowledge of Project 2025, but I know from experience as a political appointee that it will be a blueprint if Trump wins because that’s the only plan that exists,” Bartlett wrote on X.

Trump defended his widespread tariff plan that he has previously suggested could fund child care, boost manufacturing, quell immigration and encourage the use of the US dollar. He also highlighted how the Biden administration kept many of the tariffs he implemented from his first term. However, his defence left little room for an effective counterattack against Harris on economic issues. Trump’s insistence on a return to his tariff-heavy approach appeared disconnected from the more immediate economic concerns of many voters, which hinge on a high cost of living and inflation.

Harris emphasised her “opportunity economy” plan, focusing on tax breaks for first-time home buyers, young families and new businesses – as well as incentivising companies to build affordable housing.

In his closing statement, Trump finally came out with an argument that could have given him the upper hand earlier on in the debate. As Harris detailed her programme, the Republican candidate rebutted that as part of the Biden administration, Harris failed to “fix the border” and “create jobs”.

“She should leave right now, go down to that beautiful White House … and do the things you want to do but you haven’t done it – you won’t do it,” Trump said.

Abortion

Though a majority of the US public disapproved the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v Wade, Trump defended his handling of abortion by saying it is what the people wanted. But his flip-flopping on the issue in the last couple of weeks meant that his debate performance came across as “rambling” to many.

While Trump has sought to moderate his stance on the issue by criticising six-week abortion bans and expressing his support for exceptions in the case of rape or life of the mother, he also inaccurately argued in the debate that some states allow abortions after a baby has been born, a claim ABC News moderator Linsey Davis corrected. “There is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it’s born,” Davis interjected.

Harris was arguably strongest on abortion and made a personal appeal to those affected by restrictive state laws, dubbing them “Trump abortion bans”. Highlighting her opponent’s inconsistency on the matter, she warned that Trump’s lack of clarity posed a threat to women’s reproductive rights nationwide and framed his stance as an ongoing attack on women’s autonomy.

Foreign policy

Foreign policy discussions saw Harris targeting Trump’s previous negotiations with the Taliban and his plans for secret talks at Camp David, the presidential retreat in Maryland. She highlighted his controversial stance on NATO, where Trump reiterated his view of the alliance as a club.

Trump argued that the war in Gaza wouldn’t have erupted if he were in charge, claiming his tough stance on Israel kept adversaries in line. He slammed the Biden administration for lacking a strategy, while Harris shot back, pointing out that Trump’s policies like cutting aid to Palestinians and moving the US embassy to Jerusalem may have fanned the flames of conflict.

On Ukraine, Trump boasted that Putin wouldn’t have dared invade under his watch, citing his “strongman” approach and ties with the Russian leader as proof. Harris didn’t hold back and emphasised the need for steady support for Ukraine, countering that Trump’s isolationist tendencies would undermine NATO and embolden Putin.

On China, Trump continued his hardliner rhetoric, arguing that his tariffs and trade wars were necessary to protect American jobs. Harris countered that the tariffs had hurt American farmers and consumers more than China, and suggested that diplomacy and coalition-building were more effective strategies. She also pointed to Trump’s praise for authoritarian leaders, claiming it showed a troubling pattern of undermining democratic norms.

Following the debate, Trump complained about being “cornered” by both Harris and the moderators, accusing them of favouritism. While it remains unclear if the candidates will face off again before November, the Harris campaign immediately called for a second debate, signalling confidence from the Democratic camp.

“The key question is how did [the debate] impact centrist, independent voters in the seven key swing states that will determine the outcome of the election,” Vicenzino concluded.

“In my opinion, a lot of those independent voters are looking for real policy debate, which they did not get last night. What they got was more hype and more personal attacks.”

Culled from France 24

The American University history professor Allan Lichtman has a track record that’s hard to beat, having correctly predicted the results of all but one US presidential election since 1984. The historian’s 2024 prediction is that the Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris will take the White House in November.

Forget the polls, ditch the data and stop sending journalists to swing-state diners to interview undecided voters: historian Allan Lichtman already knows who is going to win the US presidential election.

“Harris will win,” Lichtman confidently announced to AFP.

He was speaking at his home in the leafy Washington suburb of Bethesda shortly after unveiling his much-discussed, once-every-four-years White House prediction, based on what he calls the “13 keys” method.

It can be easy to dismiss Lichtman’s signature methodology as just another gimmick in the endless, drawn-out “horse race” style coverage of US elections — where journalists, pollsters and pundits are constantly trying to see who is up and who is down.

But the American University history professor has answers for his critics — and a track record that’s hard to beat, having correctly called all but one election since 1984.

Lichtman pays no attention to opinion polls.

Instead, his predictions are based on a series of true-or-false propositions applied to the current presidential administration. If six or more of these “keys” are false, the election will go to the out-of-power challenger — in this case, Republican candidate Donald Trump.

Sage of Bethesda?

One of the keys, for example, posits that the president’s party won seats in the most recent midterm elections. The Democrats actually lost control of the House in the 2022 midterms, meaning this particular key is termed “false,” tipping the scales toward Trump.

A few more keys break Trump’s way: President Joe Biden stepped down, meaning Democrats lost the key which determines the “incumbency,” a vital advantage.

Biden’s vice president and replacement as nominee, Kamala Harris, is surging on optimism among party faithful. But Lichtman rules that she does not qualify for another of the keys, which is being a charismatic, “once-in-a-generation” candidate in the style of Ronald Reagan or Franklin Roosevelt.

More points to Trump, yes. But after that the keys start breaking in rapid succession for Harris.

For example, the Biden administration’s massive environment and infrastructure legislation ticks the box for the key requiring a “major policy change” by the current White House.

Another key for Harris is the exit of fringe independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

She also satisfies the key demanding lack of major scandal.

Do the math and it turns out that only three keys are falling for Trump. But to be declared the presumptive winner, he would have needed six.

And there’s another key which could go Harris’s way, if the administration reaches a ceasefire and hostage release in Gaza.

It’s a move that would likely require Democrats to push harder against the Israeli government — sure to cause strain among poll-obsessed advisors in a party trying to straddle a base that is heavily divided over the issue. Yet, a ceasefire would mean the Democrats actually delivered a policy achievement, Lichtman argues, and deliver one of the keys on foreign policy.

“I don’t like to speculate, because the devil is in the details, but that could be seen as a big success,” he said.

Forget the ‘noise’

Critics of the “13 keys” home in on the speculative nature of some of the true-false propositions. What is a charismatic leader, for example?

Yet the sage of Bethesda, as some have dubbed him, is well-versed in arguing his case.

“I’ve been doing this for 40 years. I think I’ve heard every conceivable question,” he said. “‘Aren’t your keys subjective?’ I obviously have an answer to that — they’re not subjective, they’re judgmental.

“We’re dealing with human beings. Historians make judgments all the time, and the judgments are very tightly constrained.”

Amid the “noise” of national political punditry, Lichtman argues, presidential elections are a simple “vote up or down on the strength and performance of the White House party.”

In that way, his method is anti-horse race — focused on good governance rather than campaigns, since in reality “we forget virtually anything a candidate has to say.”

The one election where Lichtman’s calculations did not predict the president was the 2000 victory of George W. Bush. Lichtman can defend his record by pointing out that this was a legally complicated nail-biter in which Democrat Al Gore won the popular vote but Bush took victory courtesy of a Supreme Court decision.

Source: AFP