Harris wins debate

- YouTube
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.

More from GZERO Media

- YouTube

Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: A key insight revealed by the Yemen military strike group chat: The entire Trump cabinet is saying we shouldn’t be helping the Europeans, and if we have to then they should be paying for it. It's not collective security, it’s purely transactional security.

National Security Advisor Michael Waltz speaks at the White House in Washington, DC, US, on Friday, March 7, 2025.

Chris Kleponis/Pool/Sipa USA

Washington is buzzing over a major security breach that saw the editor of The Atlantic magazine, Jeffrey Goldberg, mistakenly added to a Signal group chat that included Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, VP JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and National Security Advisor Mike Waltz. The group coordinated a war plan and sent real-time operational details about US strikes on Houthi targets in Yemen, sharing classified information on an external app without noticing that Goldberg was on the chat.

A young protester is holding a banner with a photo of Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan during the demonstration. Protests in Ankara continue into their fifth day following the arrest of Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality Mayor, Ekrem Imamoglu.
Bilal Seckin / SOPA Images via Reuters Connect

When opposition leader Ekrem Imamoglu was first elected mayor of Istanbul in 2019, Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, claimed his victory was a fraud and ordered a rerun.

People visit the booth of Walmart eCommerce during the 5th China Cross-Border E-Commerce Trade Fair at Fuzhou Strait International Conference and Exhibition Center on March 18, 2025 in Fuzhou, Fujian Province of China.
Photo by Wang Dongming/China News Service/VCG

“Save money, live better” may be Walmart’s promise to consumers, but US President Donald Trump’s tariffs are making it hard to fulfill.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) speaks with reporters following the Senate Republicans' weekly policy lunch on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., U.S., March 11, 2025.
REUTERS/Nathan Howard/File Photo

House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune will meet on Tuesday to try to bridge the massive schism between budget reconciliation packages in the House and Senate. At stake: Donald Trump’s policy agenda.

- YouTube

Trump is reshaping America’s relationship with Europe, which has been “impacted in a permanent and structural way,” says Ian Bremmer. In this Quick Take, Ian explains what that shift means for the future of the transatlantic alliance—and for Europe.

- YouTube

How serious is Europe about really beefing up its defense and rearming? Carl Bildt, former prime minister of Sweden and co-chair of the European Council on Foreign Relations, shares his perspective on European politics from Tabiano, Italy.

- YouTube

Beneath America’s shifting economic and foreign policy lies a fundamental question: What happens when its closest allies can no longer trust it? The Economist's Zanny Minton Beddoes joins Ian Bremmer on GZERO World to discuss.