On Sept. 10, more than 67 million Americans tuned in to watch ABC News host what is likely to be the only presidential debate before the Nov. 5 election.
The stakes of the debates were made even more obvious after the previous one on June 27 resulted in President Joe Biden’s exit from the race against former President Donald Trump. Currently, Democratic candidate Vice President Kamala Harris and Republican candidate former President Donald Trump are neck in neck in the swing states, making this debate a critical potential turning point for both candidates.
Ultimately, the debate covered a diverse range of topics, from economic stability and inflation, to abortion, immigration and foreign policy. The debate helped showcase key ideas from both candidates, and in our opinion (and that of most observers), Harris conveyed these ideas more effectively than Trump.
This time, Harris, 59, spent more time on the attack than her octogenarian boss, President Joe Biden, did in June. Specifically, she took up 46% of the attack time compared to Trump’s 29%. It was a large jump from Biden’s mere 35% spent on the offensive.
Although this skill can be attributed to her former career as prosecutor, Trump’s lack of adjustment toward an opponent who is no longer geriatric played an immense role. During the debate, Trump spent a majority of his time attacking Biden’s previous actions, especially when foreign policy came into play. In fact, he refused to refer to Harris by her name, instead turning the topic toward Biden, causing Harris to speak out.
“It is important to remind the former president: You’re not running against Joe Biden, you are running against me,” Harris said.
And indeed, it’s important to remember that Harris had limited power for 3.5 years as a VP, a fact Trump continues to dismiss. She wasn’t responsible for the majority of Biden’s policies, and even though they may be similar, this is Harris’ campaign now.
With that said, we’ll be exploring both candidate’s stances on the focal points of this debate, and deciding which nominee this debate was in favor of.
Economic Policy
As one of the major voting points in the election, both of the candidates’ economic policies were among the first topics to be discussed. As someone who grew up in the middle class, Harris emphasized giving tax breaks and incentives to young families and small businesses — her goals are primarily to appeal to the working middle class.
“I believe in the ambition, the aspirations, the dreams of the American people, and that is why I imagine and have actually a plan to build what I call an opportunity economy,” Harris said.
This repeated concept of an economy centered on opportunity is focused on growing the middle class, and supporting new entrepreneurs through tax-cuts and subsidies for small businesses. Trump, on the other hand, centered his attack on Biden’s inflation-prone policies and growth of big businesses which generate the bulk of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP).
“People can’t go out and buy cereal or bacon or eggs or anything else. The people of our country are absolutely dying with what they’ve done. They’ve destroyed the economy,” Trump said.
As he boasted about his record-low inflation and the booming economy before COVID-19 hit in 2020, Trump also urged voters to prioritize self-sufficiency over international trade. For this reason, Trump’s new policies consist of imposing tariffs on other countries, which could potentially lead to more inflation due to raised prices for foreign goods that are unable to compete with domestic goods.
Ultimately, we believe that the increased focus on the economic policies of the presidential candidates was beneficial to help us fully understand both of their stances. There was, in general, a lot of clash over the subject of inflation, which has become increasingly important in California, with Saratoga’s cost of living being 189% higher than the national average.
Abortion
When Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022, America’s renewed concern over women’s reproductive rights had only just begun. Now, more than ever, the issue of abortion is apparent, as several cases of forced preganancies due to rape and incest are gaining widespread attention. Harris emphasized these problems and stated that she would sign a bill to put back in place the protections of Roe V. Wade, providing hope for many female viewers watching.
Even after Trump refused to say whether he would sign a national abortion ban, Harris brought up his appointment of three Supreme Court judges that led to overturning of Roe, essentially shutting down any question as to whether Trump will help restore women’s reproductive rights.
Ultimately, the decisions that are made at a federal level are going to have major impacts on the entire nation — while California has kept abortion legal, states in the southeast have not, leading us to question the motive and validity of the recent Supreme Court ruling on Roe. As teens, the ruling is especially important to us, given that 55% of teen pregnancies end with abortion.
Immigration and Border Policy
Given Trump’s historically famous anti-immigration stance, the opposing views on immigration proved to be one of the most telling aspects of the debate.
Harris started off strong with the proposal to pass a bill that enforces border security by putting 1,500 agents on the border. The same bipartisan border bill that was killed earlier this year in Congress by Trump’s allies, due to his concerns about losing it as an election issue to run on.
However, by the end of the discussion, Trump stole the spotlight — and not in a good way.
Besides talking about his decade old mass deportation plan, he also accused the Biden administration of importing immigrants in, and resorted to absurdity to further his point.
“In Springfield, they’re [immigrants] eating the dogs,” Trump said. “The people that came in. They’re eating the cats. They’re eating — they’re eating the pets of the people that live there.” ABC moderator David Muir fact-checked him in real time, telling him and the audience that his claim was inaccurate according to the city manager of the town.
The fact-checking during the debate was especially helpful to voters — the repetition of negative and untrue statements from Trump as a whole has played a major role in convincing the masses of his policies.
This anti-immigrant rhetoric that Trump continues to repeat is especially important to Saratoga, and the wider Bay Area. In fact, 40% of Santa Clara County residents are immigrants, and 43.9% of Saratoga residents are immigrants. Both statistics are higher than the national average of 13.8% of residents being foreign-born. Rhetoric has the potential to make actions more violent, so to prevent a violent turn, verification of controversial statements is key.
Russia-Ukraine War
One major concern for voters right now is the U.S.’ involvement in international conflicts. Specifically, between Ukraine and Russia, and Israel and Hamas.
According to Trump, the war “never would have started” if he had won the 2020 election, and he repeatedly asserted that the conflict would be “settled” before he’d take office. Despite his will to resolve the conflict, never did he explain his exact method for achieving such an agreement, so we were left doubting the validity of his assertions. Specifically, voters are left to conclude that his primary goal is not to protect Ukraine’s sovereignty, but rather to end the war by allowing Russia’s continued expansion.
On the other hand, Harris covered her policy execution in office. Specifically, the Biden-Harris Administration has sent billions of dollars in aid to support Ukraine, and emphasized their independence in the war. However, she didn’t outline any specific policies or agenda to move forward with if she were to win.
Ultimately, we preferred the current state of action over an empty guarantee of resolution, since we were left unsure if Trump would structurally be able to follow through with his promises.
Israel-Hamas War
With Trump, he offers the same solution as with the Russia-Ukraine War: he’ll “settle” it once in office. Ultimately, the bulk of his responses to any prompt regarding the conflict were geared towards building up public hate against Harris. He claimed that Harris would “get the whole place blown up.”
While Trump spent his speech time attacking Harris, Harris offered a diplomatic and bilateral two-state solution to voters. She emphasized protecting “Israel’s ability to defend itself,” while agreeing that “far too many innocent Palestinians have been killed.” This diplomatic approach may be critical in the near future, where the visibility of the conflict has only increased in recent months.
Since Trump, again, didn’t truly offer a solution himself, we’d prefer a chance of a solution from Harris over the unspecificity of Trump.
Conclusions
The debate included a variety of other issues — famously, Trump’s “concepts of a plan” to replace the Affordable Care Act was capitalized on by Harris’ campaign, receiving comments from running vice president Tim Walz.
In the aftermath of the debate, voters were left to reconsider their stances on the two major politicians. An immediate post was made by pop star Taylor Swift, which received 11.2 million likes, announcing her endorsement of Kamala Harris, giving Harris yet another victory with a key demographic.
In general, the back-and-forth between candidates throughout the 1.5-hour debate was thoroughly entertaining, and we came to the conclusion that Harris’ previous experience as a prosecutor shined through in this debate, which left her with the upper hand. Following the debate, Trump declared his “victory” to a crowd of reporters, but he later said he wouldn’t participate in a second debate. From our perspective, not facing Harris again in a debate might be his best hope of winning on Nov. 5.