Media Vision for the Trump-Harris Debate

As the U.S. presidential election, scheduled for November 5, 2024, draws near, international attention to the results of opinion polls and the widespread interaction surrounding the second presidential debate between Republican candidate Donald Trump and Democratic candidate Kamala Harris has intensified. The debate, held on September 10, focused on key issues such as the economy, immigration, and other domestic matters, garnering significant public attention both inside and outside the United States. It is crucial to highlight the media and think tanks' response to the most contentious topics discussed in the debate.

Despite CNN reporting that Trump is seriously considering not participating in another debate, international media has largely focused on domestic issues and each candidate's responses to the questions posed during the event. The Financial Times emphasized that Trump's weak performance during the debate raised concerns among Republicans, who believe he was not adequately prepared.

The British newspaper described Tuesday's confrontation as a turning point in Trump's campaign, as he struggles to regain footing before the election. Participating in another debate could prove that this was not a decisive encounter.

Similarly, some media speculated that it remains unclear whether Trump will agree to another presidential debate against Harris, especially after he expressed reservations to Fox News, which suggested three possible dates for a debate in October.

On the other hand, Foreign Policy magazine noted that while domestic policy issues such as the economy, border security, and reproductive rights garnered significant attention during the debate, foreign policy also played a role. The candidates clashed over Trump's trade restrictions on China, the situation in Gaza, and the future of U.S. support for Ukraine.

Media assessments have suggested that while Trump's general vision for leading the country is well known to the American public, the debate gave him an opportunity to revive his struggling campaign in response to Harris entering the race. The 90-minute debate allowed voters more time to hear from Harris.

Research institutions also weighed in on the debate. The Atlantic published an evaluation by David Frum titled "Harris Succeeds in Cornering Trump," describing Harris, Vice President Joe Biden's running mate, as having a clear objective in provoking Trump to lose his composure. Frum argued that Harris succeeded, while Trump’s task was to "maintain control," in which he failed.

Frum’s assessment was based on Harris raising provocative issues, while responding to Trump's retorts with sarcastic smiles. While Frum’s tone might be perceived as admiring or biased toward Harris, he noted that Harris focused on psychology rather than politics during her debate preparation. She successfully cornered Trump at every turn. Frum concluded that, at the very least, the debate would put an end to Trump's claims that Harris is irrelevant and lacks the qualifications to participate in the debate.

The New York Post pointed out that some Republicans accused ABC News of making a serious mistake by fact-checking some of Trump’s statements live during the debate, effectively countering his claims. This has led to accusations of bias against the network, as Trump found himself responding not only to Harris’ repeated attacks but also to the two moderators, who disputed some of his remarks. Trump’s supporters accused the debate of lacking neutrality, noting that the moderators neglected several opportunities to challenge Harris’ points.

Overall, observing the pulse of the American public after the second debate reveals a rising popularity for Harris. She has managed to transform Biden’s previous defeat before his resignation into a slight and consistent lead over Trump. Local polls after the second debate showed Harris with 63% support, compared to 37% for Trump.