Tuesday night, the first presidential debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris took place on ABC. An evening that saw several confrontations, notably on the subject of abortion, the economy and immigration. The Duty takes stock with Frédérick Gagnon, director of the Raoul-Dandurand Chair Observatory on the United States and professor of political science at the University of Quebec in Montreal. Interview by Jasmine Legendre.
What did you think of this debate?
It was a very interesting debate. It might be the only one. We’ll see if there will be another one. It was Kamala Harris’ first presidential debate ever. There were still questions about her. Would she be able to stand up to Donald Trump? She had prepared for several days. It’s a sign that there was still some nervousness on the Democratic side.
Donald Trump is not easy in debate. We saw it during the debate against Hillary Clinton in 2016. At one point, he stood up and stood behind her. He has a somewhat intimidating style, and Clinton had to deal with that.
I think Kamala Harris can say mission accomplished. It wasn’t a perfect debate for her, but she accomplished some of her goals.
Who do you think is the big winner of this debate?
If you think about the goals that both candidates had to achieve, I think Kamala Harris has achieved a little more than Donald Trump. What were her goals? To give a little more detail about her program, particularly on the economy. Even if there are still people who are left wanting more, she has explained a little more what she wants to do, saying that she plans to provide federal government aid to support small and medium-sized businesses, by raising taxes on the wealthy. She says that she has an economic program for the people.
It’s important to draw a contrast in a debate. And I think she also achieved that by saying, “I have an economic program for you.” [les citoyens américains]while Trump has a program for billionaires like him.” She managed to destabilize him for a good part of the debate by prodding him on all sorts of personal questions.
I think Donald Trump’s strategy should have been to point the finger at the Democrats as the administration responsible for the misery that Americans are experiencing right now with inflation and rising interest rates. He did that well at the end of the debate.
It’s the Biden-Harris duo that is in charge right now on immigration, the US-Mexico border. There have been a significant number of irregular border crossings during the Biden presidency. That’s creating a lot of discontent within American society. But it’s as if Harris has succeeded in forcing Trump to talk about his personal problems, about himself. He’s had less time to hammer home the fact that his administration did nothing for three and a half years. [sur cet enjeu].
Several Republicans claim it was a three-to-one debate, implying that the moderators were too biased toward Democrats. Do you agree?
The debate co-hosts were supposed to correct Trump more often. Of course, they did it because Trump said more things that don’t stand up to the test of fact. He talked at one point about Haitian migrants in Ohio eating dogs and cats. We checked it out and it doesn’t hold up.
The co-hosts have been less vocal about Kamala Harris because she has said less of that. Republicans are saying maybe it wasn’t balanced enough. Either way, Trump is going to find any excuse to say the system was against him. Every time he loses, there’s a reason. It’s never his fault.
How did we get to the point of saying falsehoods in a debate? Does it benefit him?
It’s hard to say. Sometimes he thinks he is [quand il dit ça]but sometimes he does it knowingly, with full knowledge of the facts: he exaggerates. He uses shock phrases to attract attention, to ensure that people will talk about his statements from the day before. This allows him to occupy the media space.
We must not forget that there are many of his supporters who are still convinced of what he says, particularly on migration issues. It is true that Biden’s record on immigration is not the most brilliant in history.
But Donald Trump’s speech is alarmist. He relies on exaggeration. Why does he do this? To scare, to mobilize the Republican Party’s electoral base. And it works! Donald Trump has communicated this way since his presidential entrance in 2015. Whether we agree or not with his communication strategy, it is bearing fruit.
Can the debate have a real impact on the vote… or are we talking to the convinced?
American society is superpolarized right now. When you look at voting intentions, we are neck and neck, with 48% for Trump, 47% for Harris.
There are really two camps, there are not many undecided voters. At the same time, we only need a few tens of thousands of votes to win this election in a few key states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin. Maybe that’s what will seal the outcome of the race on November 5.
Can the abortion issue play a role in the presidential campaign?
This can help, in particular, to mobilize the Democratic base, to ensure that there are a lot of Democratic voters who will vote on November 5. This is a bit like what happened in 2022 during the midterm elections.
Have we really covered all the issues that are important to Americans in the debate?
Some people said that we didn’t talk enough about gun control. We touched on it a little bit, but it’s true that they talked less about it than abortion, the economy and immigration. In a 90-minute debate, we make choices.
The other issue that perhaps could have been discussed more is the environment and climate change.
There are less than two months left until the elections. What will you be following closely?
Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin have been the epicenters of the US elections since 2016. This is where Trump won in 2016. This is where Biden took back the White House. [en 2020]. It looks like the Democrats are going to focus a lot of energy on Pennsylvania. So I’m watching those three states.
Do you think there will be another debate?
Kamala Harris wishes there was one. Donald Trump was less sure this morning that he wanted another. Maybe that’s a sign he didn’t enjoy his evening.
This interview has been edited for brevity.