On September 10, the debate between Harris and Trump became a battle for the story, in which the former president was always behind, defensive and angry. Hers was a crude message, compared to a candidate who knew what to say and how to say it, to get Trump off.
Trump’s jabs seemed old and predictable. Harris’s, fresher and more effective. Her strategy was the winner and, although debates are not a definitive element for almost any campaign, her performance showed the candidate’s leadership and managed to reaffirm the wave Kamala that existed at that time among Democratic voters.
Yesterday’s debate between the vice presidents was even less important for the elections. In fact, the only risk was making mistakes and becoming a meme (as happened to Trump in the presidential debate). In this case, in a vice presidential debate, you cannot win, only lose, and the most logical and normal thing is a tie that does not matter to anyone. However, there are some features of last night’s debate that need to be taken into account.
First of all, it should be noted that the Republican team moderated JD Vance a lot. A much more visceral vice presidential candidate, similar to Trump, was expected. Instead, he was conversational and, at times, affable. It is a change that we are not used to and, obviously, he had prepared it that way, just as he prepared the most potentially controversial questions, such as why he attacked Trump a few years ago and is now his candidate for vice president. Perhaps his worst moment was when he was asked if Trump lost the 2020 election and he ignored the issue. However, this reaction has become the norm among Republicans and did not provide a viral response, which was surely its objective.
Secondly, that Tim Walz was not as good as expected. It does not mean that it was bad because, again, the objective was not to lose and so he did, but he did not achieve the perception of being a great leader who would differentiate himself from the rest and, especially, from his rival. It was difficult for him to enter and it was difficult for him to show himself as an ordinary person, which is how he is usually perceived and one of the reasons why he was named vice presidential candidate.
Third, moderation and dialogue were highlights. And that is new. Both contestants used the words agreement, I agree either I don’t disagree more than a dozen times. That it happened in the middle of one of the most polarized elections in history is almost a miracle that shows that all is not lost in politics. That show of moderation, yes, is a point in favor of the Republican campaign, since Trump is the one who needs it the greatest after his performance in the previous debate.
Fourthly, yesterday we were able to attend a debate normal. And that, in the United States of 2024, is a fact worth highlighting. This was the third debate of these elections. If in a first debate the most remembered was the debacle of Joe Biden live, and, in a second debate, the most memorable thing was the improbable story of the dogs and cats eaten by immigrants in Springfield, in Trump’s words, there is nothing specifically to remember from this debate. We return to an ordinary debate, in which nothing happens, of which no one will remember anything, and which will not produce significant effects on the vote.
Last night was the last debate of these elections and, therefore, the last opportunity to address a broad audience through television. However, it was not a great debate on television. It only stood out for being the most normal of the debates and for showing that you can talk about American politics without saying atrocities and without attacking each other personally. Nobody will remember the debate. Let’s hope that, at least, that feeling is remembered.
