September 11, 2024
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: We have all just finished watching the presidential debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. Quite likely the only presidential debate we're going to see between them before November elections, and very clearly, Harris was the winner. This wasn't as dramatic as the Biden-Trump debate, but it was nonetheless pretty one-sided. Harris made very few mistakes. She was on message, she was disciplined. She focused on policy, she oriented questions towards topics that she wanted to discuss, and she landed punches against Trump and his unfitness in areas that she felt comfortable, whether it was on abortion, whether it was on the economy, whether it was on international issues, or on democracy.
And it's not that Trump didn't have points to make, but he largely didn't make them. The only significant time that I saw a misstep that Trump was able to hit against Kamala was when she was complaining about his tariffs against China and more broadly. And, of course, these were policies that Trump put in place, which Biden stuck with and claims he's succeeded in China, and they were Trump policies and said, well, if you want to change them, why didn't you? And through the debate, his message was, well, if there are all these great things you wanted to do, you've been vice president, why haven't you done them over the last 3.5 years? But on balance, what Trump did was lose message, lose discipline, and attack Kamala Harris in ways that seemed incoherent and all over the map from the opening question when he was asked about the economy and couldn't stay on target on the economy instead immediately started talking about immigration when he threw in this nonsensical and false claim that immigrants, Haitian immigrants in Ohio are eating household pets. When he was asked about foreign policy and said I'm loved around the world and used Hungary's Viktor Orban as his respected character witness on and on, he seemed defensive and angry and not on message and not disciplined and was rattled by the fact that Kamala Harris was landing punches against him.
I don't think she was fantastic, but she was good. And good is a significant accomplishment given the fact that coming into this, she was not taking interviews, one exception over the last six weeks with the media. Certainly, nothing that was confrontational or hostile, that she's frequently spoken in abstractions and generalities, and not shown policy chops on a range of issues with depth and detail, that she frequently laughs a lot, you know, sort of out of timing and in ways that seems not to make sense, and out of defensiveness. None of that happened this evening. Today, Harris was responding coherently, not always with every fact at her fingertips, but certainly seemed to be a normal politician with a message to put across. Was particularly strong on issues like abortion, where she has that capacity, and on pieces of economic policy. Also, in being able to land blows against Trump and his unfitness, inconsistency, lack of support for democracy, other related issues.
Now, ABC is going to come into the crosshairs here because certainly the questions that they asked, and the follow-ups, were more hostile towards Trump than they were towards Harris. Would you say that they were biased against Trump? Well, I would say that they were more focused on fact-finding, and Trump, more frequently than Harris and more frequently than any politician at that level, is making up his own facts. And they were doing a fair amount of fact-checking in real time. I would say there was a little bit of bias in the sense that there were a couple of places they could have been fact-checking Kamala Harris, and they didn't. And I think they could have done a better job of that. I also think that they gave Trump much more time to follow up when he wanted to, and they typically cut off Harris at the end of her time. You could say that that's bias in favor of Trump, except it didn't help Trump. It actually hurt Trump because the longer he was speaking, the more rattled and unhinged he appeared to be.
So, I'd certainly say if you were looking at this debate, in terms of who you thought actually came across as a winner, and you had uncertainty as a potential voter, in the way that Biden/Trump would have been 95%, Trump, Harris/Trump would be 80% Harris. Now, if you're a partisan on the Harris or Trump side, it didn't matter what was going to happen, and you're going to say that your side won, no matter what. If you're trying to defend Trump tomorrow on air, you're going to say, “This was three-on-one. This was an ABC dogpile. They're the fake news. They should be shut down.” And I suspect Trump will be saying that, both directly and with his proxies tomorrow.
But the fact is, he did not perform, and he is a 78-year-old man. He has not been particularly on point or on message in lots of his rallies recently, if you've watched them, or at the Economics Club in New York last week, if you watch that speech, he has vulnerabilities. And Kamala Harris, who had not been tested at this level before, this is, you know, a presidential debate, she's the nominee., it's the biggest spot of her life, and she gave the best performance of her vice presidency, in my view. Was she, you know, Obama in terms of masterful and soaring rhetoric? No. was she Reagan? Same, no. But was she capable of sounding presidential, sounding like a leader, and thumping Trump pretty hard? Absolutely, yes. I think this is an incredibly tight race. It's essentially a coin flip. I think this will probably give Harris a little bit more momentum that had tapped out after the convention. But it's probably not going to move her 2 or 3 points. It might move her half a point or a point.
It's very, very tight. And I still think this election is very much open over the next couple months. But Harris did herself significant favors, Trump did himself none, over the last couple of hours, and that's the news going into tomorrow. That's my view. Best I can do. You can disagree with it, but you know, I at least try to tell you what I think is going on honestly, and I'll talk to you all real soon.
From Your Site Articles
- How Harris and Trump plan to tackle America’s housing crisis ›
- Trump vs. Harris: A high-stakes election and its risks to democracy ›
- GZERO presidential debate scorecard: Rate the debate! ›
- Trump-Harris debate: What to expect ›
- Muted mics, amplified impact: Harris and Trump debate for razor-thin margins ›
- Debate Bingo, VP edition: Tim Walz v. JD Vance - GZERO Media ›
More For You
Check out the latest swag from the official Puppet Regime merchandise store! Browse an array of products that will show the world you are a devoted subject of the Regime, including: A big, beautiful mug for drinking coffee very strongly, A handsome tote bag to carry your favorite classified documents, Collectible stickers, Stylish t-shirts and hoodies – now also available in pink. We ship worldwide! Shop now at shop.puppetregime.tv!
Most Popular
US-Canada talks hit tariff deadline, Meta goes on trial, Japan to test missiles in Australia
Aug 18, 2026
A banner reading "Buy Canadian", in response to U.S. President Donald Trump's 25% tariffs on goods from Canada, is held aloft by a pair of hockey sticks in front of a house in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada March 5, 2025.
REUTERS/Ed White
Washington and Ottawa are down to the wire with last-minute talks to reach an agreement by 12:01 a.m. Wednesday, when President Donald Trump has threatened to impose 50% tariffs on over $20 billion of Canadian goods.
On Monday, public health officials said the virus had killed 2,325 people.
A staff member holds a dummy as staff and customers take shelter at a storage room, during an air raid exercise at a PX Mart supermarket as part of the civil defence drills in Taipei, Taiwan. July 10, 2025.
REUTERS/Annabelle Chih
As the line between the battlefield and everyday life blurs, countries are increasingly preparing civilians for the next war.
© 2025 GZERO Media. All Rights Reserved | A Eurasia Group media company.
