Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
Vice President Kamala Harris and former president Donald Trump arrived at Tuesday night’s debate aiming to present themselves as the change agents that polls show Americans are craving.
But from the opening, both candidates were thrown on the defensive, forced to reckon with their records—Harris on the economy and border security, Trump on immigration and his actions on Jan. 6, 2021—and underscoring the challenge they both face in trying to convince voters they would usher in a new era for the country.
While voters often convey a desire for change, polls showed their appetite for it intensified earlier this year when the presidential race was headed toward a rematch between President Joe Biden and Trump.
Even though Harris rarely leans into the historic nature of her candidacy—if elected, she would be the first female president and is almost two decades younger than Trump—she has key biographical advantages as she makes her change argument.
“Clearly, I am not Joe Biden, and I am certainly not Donald Trump,” Harris said. “And what I do offer is a new generation of leadership for our country, one who believes in what is possible, one who brings a sense of optimism about what we can do instead of always disparaging the American people.”
But she faces her own challenges in presenting as a fresh face, carrying the baggage of the Biden administration and trying to avoid the pitfalls that vice presidents have historically faced running as change candidates. On Tuesday, she at times tried to thread the needle between grasping onto the popular elements of the Biden years while distancing herself from some of his policy positions and what parts of the electorate had decided were bad vibes.
Trump, for his part, continually sought to tie Harris to Biden’s record and also questioned why she had yet to implement the various policy proposals she outlined even though she works in the West Wing.
“So she just started by saying she’s going to do this,” Trump said after Harris delivered her closing statement. “She’s going to do that. She’s going to do all these wonderful things. Why hasn’t she done it? She’s been there for 3½ years.”
Democratic and Republican strategists both agreed that whichever candidate can succeed in convincing voters they best represent change will win in November. Just minutes before the debate started, Scott Reed, a Republican strategist, said Trump needed to “indict” Harris on the economy, the border and crime in that effort.
“He doesn’t need to go to crazy town,” he said, emphasizing that the former president needed to stay keenly focused on the sliver of undecided voters in battleground states.
As the debate ended, Reed conceded that Trump failed in that mission.
“Trump did not check the change box tonight,” Reed said in a text message. “He wandered and was on defense most of the debate.”
He followed up: “Trump not only took the bait all night, he swallowed the hook.”
As he promises change, Trump faces quandaries of his own: He has dominated American politics for nearly a decade—since he rode down the golden escalator in his eponymous tower in 2015—and held the presidency before Americans denied him a second term in 2020. As he runs for a third time, he now faces several legal challenges while promoting a more extreme agenda should he win in November.
A New York Times-Siena College poll released this week found that 61 percent of likely voters wanted a “major change” from Biden, with 53 percent saying Trump represented “major change” compared to 25 percent saying the same about Harris. An NPR/PBS News/Marist College poll released a day later asked voters which candidate most “represents change” and found that Harris led with 52 percent compared with Trump’s 46 percent.
“In some ways, it’s unfathomable to me that you could think a Black woman, a woman of South Asian descent, a relatively younger woman does not represent anything other than change simply in the story that she brings with her,” said Amanda Litman, the co-founder of Run for Something, a liberal group focused on recruiting Democratic candidates in local races. “At the same time, she is Joe Biden’s vice president and carries with her some of the legacies of that leadership.”
She added: “I think that’s why you’re seeing sometimes she is leading on the change question and someone Trump is because there is so much variation in how voters define the term.”
During the debate, Harris tried to remind voters of the chaos during Trump’s presidency, hammering her pitch that Trump would bring the country backward and tying him to Project 2025, a package of ultraconservative policy proposals put forth by Trump’s allies.
“It is important that we move forward, that we turn the page on this same old tired rhetoric and address the needs of the American people,” Harris said.
On the policy front, Harris has put forward few new policies, though advisers tout her economic policies as evidence of some separation from the president. But their differences are largely on the margin—for example, Harris proposed a 28 percent tax on long-term capital gains to Biden’s 39.6 percent, and she supports eliminating taxes on tips whereas he does not—and their overall visions are closely aligned.
Harris also struck a different tone on abortion than Biden did, going into great detail about the impacts overturning Roe v. Wade has had on women in America. She also has taken a harsher tone on Israel’s actions while expressing more sympathy for the plight of Palestinians.
Her slogan—a “new way forward”—is part of the effort to subtly signal separation from the president, though by and large, Harris effusively praises Biden’s record and knows his endorsement gave her the glide path to securing the Democratic nomination.
Trump slammed Harris for lacking any plans of her own, accusing her of adopting all of Biden’s plans.
“She doesn’t have a plan,” he said Tuesday night. “She copied Biden’s plan, and it’s like four sentences, like ‘Run, Spot Run.’ ”
Trump vigorously tried to distance himself from Project 2025, as his aides have determined it was detrimental to his reelection efforts. But even as he tried to promise change should he win, much of his rhetoric focused on returning America back to the policies of his past administration.
“I created one of the greatest economies in the history of our country,” he said. “I’ll do it again.”
And after Republicans spent months attacking Biden over his age, raising doubts about his mental acuity, Harris attempted to turn the tables on Trump on Tuesday, questioning his fitness for the job. Democrats say the generational argument—Harris is 59 and Trump is 78—is particularly effective for voters.
“There is no greater change than generational change,” Rebecca Katz, a Democratic strategist said, noting that three of the last five presidents—Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Trump—were all born during the summer of 1946. “It feels different because it is.”
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.
I can’t imagine last night moving the needle for either one. Harris looked somewhat less stupid, which is the lowest of bars.
I am constantly appalled these two clowns are who the Primary voters thought should be our next President. And yes, I am aware Harris didn’t win any Primaries, but the rank and file Democrat voted for the sitting potato in chief until George Clooney told them not to, so here we are.
If looking stupid is your worst complaint, it’s so much better than what Trump did, sounding stupid…
Harris is the only candidate qualified. Too bad the Republican Party did not have the courage to nominate one of the qualified candidates that ran in the primary.
I used to think that if Capitol Police had failed and a couple legislators died, I used to think that the second impeachment would have had a different outcome.
As time has gone on, I’ve come off that opinion. But that was the chance for Republicans to move on. I think they chose not to because they don’t have anything to offer voters.
Tuesday Morning I read a crazy story about immigrants eating pets in Springfield OH. I have relatives in Springfield. I checked the New York Times and they fact checked it and said it was absolutely not true. They had actual interviews with the town manager and the head of the police department.
I was shocked when a leading party candidate running for president was actually quoting this right wing echo-sphere conspiracy theory story on national media. Trump is either too stupid to know what is real, or too gullible , or worse yet, knows he’s lying and repeats the lie. Any one of those possibilities should disqualify him from being President.
I see you mentioned that you fact checked the story of immigrants eating pets through New York Times, your family being residents of the area and a town manager. Yet I see no mention at all of anyone interviewing the individual that’s actually accused of eating the pet? At best it’s inconclusive even with your fact checking.
If Trump wants to prove his case then he should do what Kevin says . . . produce a person who admits or is proven to have done it (if he can’t – case settled – no proof). That shouldn’t be too hard if it’s true and if your integrity and election is on the line. Even if he did find an individual who admits to eating a dog/cat (not a person who says he thinks somebody did), that would be terribly wrong but you cannot blow it up to include a broad generalization about a whole population. If that were the case, we could broadly say GOP politicians are shooting their dogs when they won’t follow training (a statement where we do have an admitted perpetrator) or people in Milwaukee are cannibals (as Dahmer was)
Trump simply knows half his base will believe whatever he says and the other half will want to believe to believe it so much that they learn to believe it. Similar to Trump saying all the polls say he won the debate. I’m sure there are a couple out there such as the poll of Trump’s “immediate” family, the poll of guests currently staying at Mara Lago, the poll of GOP congresspeople – oh wait, saw enough interviews on tv this morning to know that isn’t true. He just throws this stuff against the wall and hopes 50 – 100% of his base eats it up without requiring any proof. If not, he moves on as if it never said it (he will even convince himself he didn’t say it despite video proof otherwise)
Kevin, stop. You look ridiculous. You’re actually tying to defend a pet-eating diatribe. It was and is ridiculous.
No one but Trump himself thinks he won the debate. Even FOX News Channel panned Trump’s performance. He came across as angry, incoherent, and insecure. In other words, not presidential material.
He’s never been presidential material. That’s the appeal.
I just don’t understand how anyone can’t see through it all after he was in office four years and did nothing. I mean, infrastructure week? Repeal and replace? He didn’t do anything except get used by the Federalist Society to pack the courts. Positively Putin-esque…