On September 10, a pivotal debate unfolded between U.S. presidential candidates Donald Trump and Kamala Harris at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. With the November 5 election looming, Americans are not merely determining their domestic trajectory for the next four years but are poised to shape global dynamics, with a particular focus on countries like Ukraine, keenly observing the outcomes in this NATO linchpin nation.
The choice of Philadelphia as the setting for this event is rich in historical resonance. It was here, in 1776, that the American colonies proclaimed their independence from Britain. The city’s museum, while not housing the original Declaration—safely kept in the National Archives in Washington, D.C.—remains the sole institution in the United States dedicated entirely to this foundational document.
The symbolic significance extends beyond the venue. As North Carolina’s Democratic governor Roy Cooper aptly framed it, “This race is about character, about the soul of America.” Indeed, the contest could hardly be more divergent: a 59-year-old woman from a middle-class background, the daughter of Jamaican and Indian immigrants, who has carved out a career in public service, versus a 77-year-old businessman, born into considerable wealth, inheriting a fortune reportedly amounting to at least $400 million. This contrast underscores the starkly different visions each candidate represents for the future of the United States and, by extension, the world.
Expectations for this clash of worldviews were high, and they were fully met. The candidates impressed the public not only with their political acumen but also with their acting skills, appealing to both the logic and emotions of the audience.
First, let’s address Ukraine, which, while not a top priority in the U.S., still holds importance
Geopolitical issues, it should be noted, were not the centrepiece of the debate. The discussion veered more towards mutual recriminations than any substantive outlining of strategies. Yet, the subject of Russia’s war against Ukraine was impossible to sidestep entirely.
On two occasions, Trump dodged direct questions from the moderators about whether he supports a Ukrainian victory. Instead, he emphasised his desire to end the war to save lives, asserting that millions are dying and dismissing official casualty figures as false.
“It’s in the interest of the U.S. to end this war,” he remarked. From this, one might infer that Ukraine’s interests, or President Zelensky’s peace plan, are not high on the former president’s agenda. Trump’s remarks suggested a lack of a concrete strategy, hinting instead that he would react based on the circumstances at the time.
While Trump’s call for Europe to shoulder more of the burden resonates with many, his assertion that Europe stands to benefit more than the U.S. from an end to the war was accompanied by an exaggerated claim about the disparity in aid. Trump contended that Europe had contributed $150 billion less than the U.S., whereas data from the Kiel Institute suggests the gap is far smaller and that it is, in fact, the U.S. that lags behind Europe in some respects.
Trump stated that he knows both Putin and Zelensky well, claiming that both respect him. “If I win, when I am elected president, I will talk to one, talk to the other. I’ll bring them together, and this war will be over like it never happened.” He accused Biden of playing a dangerous game with a nuclear-armed country, which, he warned, could lead to World War Three.
Trump further asserted that, had he been president, Russia would never have dared to launch a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. He promised to end the war before even taking office, implying that his election would dramatically alter the geopolitical dynamics.
In response, Harris argued that the only way Trump could swiftly end the war was by capitulating to Putin, which would endanger Poland. While the broader threat would extend over NATO’s entire eastern flank, her emphasis on Poland was likely intended to appeal to the substantial Polish-American community in Pennsylvania. “If Donald Trump were president, Putin would already be in Kyiv,” she charged.
Harris underscored the value-driven dimension of leadership, asserting that a president must grasp “the importance of America’s role and responsibility in ensuring stability and upholding our principles.” She commended the collective effort of uniting 50 nations in support of Ukraine, framing its struggle as a legitimate defence of sovereignty, and noted the reinforcement of NATO’s eastern flank.
Despite this, neither candidate appeared to offer a clear, actionable strategy for supporting Ukraine, nor did they present a definitive vision for resolution or victory. Nevertheless, Harris injects a long-term strategic outlook on the geopolitical ramifications of decisions related to Ukraine. Her policy stance would likely extend the current administration’s approach. Even if assistance remains constrained and a diplomatic solution becomes the West’s priority, U.S. rhetoric is expected to continue supporting Ukraine robustly, regardless of the specifics of the outcomes.
Trump is unlikely to adhere to the value-driven principles he espouses or to fully consider Ukraine’s articulated priorities. This stance is, perhaps, not surprising. If short-term deals with Putin enable him to project himself as a peacemaker or a victor—contrasting with Biden, under whom the full-scale invasion began with an uncertain resolution and a cautious stance on military aid—then the policies of a new administration in the White House could potentially upset Ukrainians.
Yet, Trump’s lack of a consistent position renders him fundamentally unpredictable. The level of support he might extend could fluctuate significantly based on how any potential agreements with the Kremlin—an entity notoriously untrustworthy—are perceived. Despite this uncertainty, the scope for manoeuvre is limited by Russia’s pivot towards China and the candidate’s unequivocal stance on the so-called Chinese threat.
What did the candidates talk about?
Notably, geopolitical issues did not dominate the discourse. The debates commenced with a subject of paramount importance to every American—the economy.
Harris advocated for creating an “economy of opportunity,” proposing higher taxes on corporations and the introduction of new tax credits, thereby positioning herself as a staunch defender of the middle class. In contrast, Trump pledged to impose new tariffs on imports and reduce taxes for select companies while simultaneously portraying himself as a champion of all Americans. Although the candidates did not delve deeply into the specifics of their economic plans, their general positions are well-established.
The Democratic candidate’s economic agenda includes raising corporate and capital gains tax rates to 28 per cent, offering tax incentives of up to $50,000 for newly established small businesses, introducing a $25,000 tax credit for first-time homebuyers, increasing child tax credits for all parents, and ensuring no tax hikes for individuals earning less than $400,000.
The Republican candidate’s economic platform includes a proposal to lower corporate tax rates to 15 per cent, impose a 20 per cent tariff on all imports—with a notably higher 60 per cent tariff on goods from China—and reinstate tax deductions for individuals, including those with high incomes, and eliminate taxes on tips.
Following the economy, women’s reproductive rights emerged as a critical issue. Trump highlighted his role in reversing the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, which had safeguarded a woman’s constitutional right to choose an abortion without undue government interference. This reversal was achieved through the appointment of conservative justices during his presidency.
When questioned about whether he would veto a federal abortion ban, Trump deflected, asserting that Congress would not pass such legislation. In contrast, Harris staunchly supported the restoration of the original 1973 ruling.
The discussion also addressed the critical issue of recognising election results and ensuring peaceful power transfer. Trump again sidestepped the moderators’ question about whether he regrets his actions related to the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot, in which his supporters breached the legislative building.
Key concerns in the debate included illegal immigration, border security, the fentanyl crisis, and human trafficking. Trump argued that illegal immigration through an unsecured border had paradoxically led to decreased crime rates elsewhere, using the hyperbolic analogy of “Venezuela on steroids” to describe his vision for the U.S. The moderators countered with official statistics indicating a decline in crime rates within the U.S. Kamala Harris reminded viewers that Trump had actively sought to sway Republican lawmakers against a compromise immigration bill, which had broader implications, including affecting aid to Ukraine.
Trump’s plan for the mass deportation of 11 million undocumented immigrants remains vague. Meanwhile, the Democratic stance on immigration has also hardened under Republican pressure and the high stakes of the presidential race. Harris, however, was reluctant to address how these shifts align with her previously stated values. In this campaign, she has distanced herself from some of the more progressive positions she championed during the 2020 election, particularly in economic policy.
When the debate eventually turned to international policy, both candidates presented their views in broad, sweeping terms.
Kamala Harris articulated that U.S. policy towards China must secure victory in what she described as 21st-century competition. She affirmed Israel’s right to self-defence, though she offered a nuanced critique of the bombing in Gaza, advocated for a two-state solution, and pledged to support the rebuilding of Gaza.
Harris also called Trump “weak” and “wrong” on geopolitical vision and accused him of harbouring authoritarian ambitions, pointing to his “love letters” to various autocrats, who, she argued, flatter him while privately ridiculing him. Faced with these charges, Trump defended himself by citing praise from Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who, Trump claimed, viewed him as the most respected and feared leader. “We had no issues when Trump was president,” Trump asserted.
Throughout the debate, the term “lie” was frequently used, with both candidates accusing each other of deceit. Harris notably refrained from linking economic problems to the pandemic, instead placing full responsibility on Trump. Meanwhile, Trump, staying true to form, relied on emotive anecdotes and sweeping claims.
Trump’s attack on Harris’s father, a former Stanford professor known for his left-leaning views, by labelling him a Marxist seemed more like a trademark flourish of his rhetoric rather than a substantive critique. While questions about Harris’s familial connections may arise, Trump’s allegations appeared more as a spectacle of his provocative style.
Trump’s discourse frequently veered into the realm of outlandish conspiracy theories. He made unfounded claims about migrants allegedly consuming local pets and asserted that some states permitted the execution of newborns, which he termed “post-birth abortion.” He also denounced the FBI as a fundamentally corrupt entity spreading “false statements” and labelled U.S. elections a “mess,” accusing Democrats—without evidence—of counting votes from illegal immigrants.
In response, Harris emphasised the Supreme Court’s ruling that grants a sitting president immunity from prosecution for criminal offences, suggesting that Trump’s preoccupation with his own legal troubles might be overshadowing his concern for national issues. She also highlighted the support of over two hundred prominent Republicans, including some of Trump’s former allies, as evidence of his diminishing backing.
Trump’s attempt to link Harris with President Biden’s flaws seemed to fall flat. Harris seized the moment to clarify that the election was not a referendum on Biden but rather a head-to-head battle between Trump and herself. She made a strong case for her vision of uniting America, sharply contrasting with Trump’s divisive rhetoric.
Reactions to the debate
Kamala Harris is running what might be the shortest presidential campaign in modern memory, giving her limited chances to falter and only a narrow window to sway undecided voters. The debate was a pivotal moment for her to solidify her standing.
Throughout the debate, Harris exuded confidence and poise, drawing on her extensive experience as Deputy District Attorney in Alameda County, California. Her skilful handling of the debate highlighted her preparation and expertise, although it’s worth noting that these same abilities did not secure her victory in the 2020 presidential race.
Political analyst Brit Hume of Fox News was scathing about Trump’s performance, stating, “Make no mistake about it, Trump had a bad night.” He added, “My sense is that she came out of this in pretty good shape.”
Politico observed that Harris effectively “got under Trump’s skin,” with commentators noting her ability to force Trump onto the defensive. This tactical manoeuvre prevented him from delivering impactful arguments on issues where he might have had a strategic advantage, such as immigration and the economy. Harris, steadfast and unprovoked, appeared to unsettle Trump further with her persistent questioning. Despite her effective performance, Trump managed to have the final word on nearly every topic discussed.
In response, Republicans have accused the debate moderators of bias and expressed dissatisfaction with their candidate’s performance. Senator Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) criticised the proceedings, stating, “It was three against one. They kept fact-checking Donald Trump. They never did that with Kamala Harris,” reflecting concerns over perceived imbalance in the debate’s handling.
Marco Rubio, the senator from Florida, called the debate an “embarrassment to journalism,” while Sean Hannity described the evening as “the biggest failure for the country tonight.”
Unpredictable predictions
The race to succeed Joseph Biden in the Oval Office remains up in the air: Will it be former President Donald Trump or Kamala Harris who could make history as America’s first female president? Before Biden’s withdrawal from the race, Trump had been consistently ahead in the polls. However, the landscape began to shift following the debates in June, which underscored the urgency for a new Democratic candidate due to concerns about Biden’s health. This shift paved the way for Kamala Harris to enter the fray, significantly intensifying the competition.
As the latest presidential debates approached, national polls revealed a tight race, with Harris edging out Trump by a narrow margin of 47.2 points to Trump’s 44.3 points. Given Harris’s late entry into the race and Trump’s previous 5-point lead earlier in the summer, this represents a significant turnaround for the Democratic candidate.
In the U.S. electoral system, however, the crucial factor is not the national popular vote but the allocation of votes within the Electoral College. Of the 538 total electoral votes, 270 are required to secure victory. For instance, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016 but lost the presidency due to the Electoral College results.
The current landscape in seven key states offers no clear prediction of victory for either candidate. In several states, the margin between the contenders is less than one per cent, including the at the moment ‘blue’ states of Nevada and North Carolina, as well as the currently ‘red’ states of Georgia and Arizona. In Michigan, Wisconsin, and the strategically pivotal Pennsylvania, with its 19 electoral votes, Harris holds a narrow lead.
Looking ahead, the potential outcomes are distinctly polarised. If Trump manages to clinch victories in the Sun Belt states of Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada—regions he lost in 2020—he could well secure the presidency. Conversely, if Harris makes significant gains in the Rust Belt by winning Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, she could achieve victory. Historically, these Rust Belt states have leaned Democratic, though Trump notably disrupted this trend in 2016.
The impact of debates on voter preferences remains a crucial factor. Since the advent of televised debates in the 1960s, these forums have had the potential to become pivotal “turning points” in electoral contests. The first televised debate between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon is often cited as a decisive moment influencing the election’s outcome. Similarly, the Democratic Party’s urgency in replacing its candidate just 100 days before the summer vote underscores the high stakes and the potential for debates to shift the electoral balance.
As many Americans are still getting to know Kamala Harris as a potential President, the debate on September 10 stands to be a critical juncture in the race. Currently, Republicans are actively trolling Harris as a nominee who has not won a single primary. This was interpreted as a decision by the party elite, which claims to be fighting for “saving democracy,” yet has overridden the choice of millions of Americans who supported Biden.
Democrats counter by reminding voters of the Republican candidate’s convictions on 34 counts of falsifying business records and his involvement in paying hush money to a porn star. His record also includes attempts to influence the results of the 2020 presidential election and incitements to storm the Capitol after his defeat.
The first reactions are already in. The leading artist of the moment, Taylor Swift, officially endorsed Harris just half an hour after the debate ended. On Instagram, Swift wrote, “Like many of you, I watched the debate today. I will be casting my vote for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz in the 2024 Presidential Election. I’ve done my research, and I’ve made my choice. Your research is all yours to do, and the choice is yours to make.”
