On Tuesday, September 10 former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris met in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for their first, and seemingly only debate of the 2024 election cycle. Trump’s performance in this debate centered on personal attacks, a clear lack of policy knowledge, and certainly hasn’t helped him with key voting groups. Democrats had a field day watching Vice President Harris in the debate, but she may have failed to convince swing voters that are key to a victory for Democrats.
Both Harris and Trump are fighting to court select voters in the swing states that are crucial to an election night victory. These swing states are Nevada, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Georgia. Pennsylvania, which has become increasingly competitive in the past two election cycles, seems poised to decide the next President of the United States. Just months ago, Trump polled above President Biden in nearly every swing state, but since Harris was put atop the ticket, fortunes have shifted in the favor of Democrats. Poll after poll indicates one thing: the race is in a virtual tie.
Pennsylvania went for Trump by about 40,000 votes in 2016, and for Biden by about 80,000 votes in 2020. This has elevated Pennsylvanians as the most fought for bloc of voters in the nation. Issues that may seem insignificant nationally are paramount in Pennsylvania. Among these issues is fracking, a large industry in rural Pennsylvania. This topic was brought up multiple times in the debate, with Trump swinging at Harris for vowing to ban fracking in 2020, If Pennsylvania is close enough, this could cost her the election. But since then, Harris has shifted positions on fracking, saying in a CNN interview that, “We can grow and we can increase a thriving clean energy economy without banning fracking.”
According to Ipsos, Americans have identified the economy as their top concern in the 2024 election. Times/Siena polling reveals that 55 percent of Americans trust Trump to do a better job handling the economy, Harris trails behind him with 42 percent of Americans trusting that she would do a better job. Throughout the debate, Harris vowed to create an ‘opportunity economy,’ but wasn’t clear on how this differed from Biden’s current policies. The Trump campaign has sought to tie the shortfallings of the current administration to Vice President Harris, while inflating Trump’s record on the economy. But it seems that Harris has been able to successfully keep herself at an arm’s length from the economic shortfallings of the administration. Harris confronted Trump about his plan for a 20 percent tariff on all imported goods. Economists have decried this plan, arguing that it will stunt economic growth and that prices will be passed onto the consumer. Goldman Sachs projects that the US economy would grow most under Harris, tumbling under Trump, but this is only meaningful to the electorate if the Harris campaign successfully plays this out before them.
In seemingly each one of her responses, Harris left bait for Trump. She said or referred to something to purposefully rile him up. In doing this, Harris satisfied Democrats and Never-Trumpers as she successfully put Trump on edge, causing him to exaggerate his misconjecture, and go on tirades that made him appear to be filled with rage and falsehoods. But key swing voters may not have been convinced. Harris spoke for upwards of 37 minutes in the debate, nearly half of this time was filled with attacks on Trump. Many swing voters wanted to see Harris discuss the fine print of her economic policy, her unceasing attacks on Trump may have compromised this very thing. It’s a question of whether Harris’ discussion of an ‘opportunity economy’ and her attacks on Trump’s economic plans will be enough to convince voters who are on the fence.
Trump certainly didn’t win in any aspect of this debate. When speaking on healthcare reform, an issue that he has pushed for nine years and should be able to answer quite easily, he said that he only has “concepts of a plan.” Asked why he called in to congressional allies to kill a bipartisan immigration reform deal, Trump said, “In Springfield, they’re eating the dogs. The people that came in. They’re eating the cats.” These are completely false claims that have been confirmed as fabricated by the Springfield City Manager, the Republican Governor of Ohio, Mike DeWine, and other officials. Surely, crude and demonstrably false statements like these worry swing voters, but they won’t necessarily shift them to Harris’ column. Harris can’t only play to the Democrats in key states, she must court independents as well. Whether or not she was able to do this in the debate is still up in the air.
WSJ opinion writer Peggy Noonan wrote that the debate was “A Decisive but Shallow Debate Win for Harris.” Similarly, the NYT asserts, “Pundits Said Harris Won the Debate. Undecided Voters Weren’t So Sure.” Harris destroyed Trump in this debate, any suggestion that Trump won is backed only by delusion. It’s just a matter of whether or not Harris succeeded in winning over swing voters in her debate performance.
