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

The Assad family no longer rules Syria. So how did a brutally repressive regime rule with an iron fist for five decades, only to collapse in two weeks? To help make sense of these shocking past few weeks and the potential power vacuum to come is Middle East expert and Beirut-based journalist Kim Ghattas on GZERO World with Ian Bremmer.

Economic Outlook 2025 reveals the trends and shifts that will shape the global economy in the coming year, according to the Mastercard Economics Institute. The report explores a few key economic themes, leveraging Mastercard’s aggregated and anonymized data to provide a unique perspective. This includes cyclical changes – such as shifts in consumption as central banks lower rates or prices change – and structural changes like the impact of migration on capital flows or workplace flexibility driving greater female workforce engagement.

- YouTube

The last time Syrians sought to oust the Bashar Assad regime, the ensuing crackdown sparked a 14-year-long civil war, killing over 500,000 Syrians and creating nearly six million refugees. So why did things change this time? Ian Bremmer explains.

A 24-hour Yonhapnews TV broadcast at Yongsan Railway Station shows South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol delivering a speech at the Presidential Office in Seoul. South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol, defended his botched martial law declaration, as an act of governance and denied insurrection charges facing him, while vowing to fight until the last moment against whether it is impeachment or a martial law probe.
Kim Jae-Hwan / SOPA Images via Reuters Connect

South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol looks highly likely to be impeached on Saturday after the leader of his own party on Thursday told members to vote according to their “conviction and conscience.”

Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan poses with Somali President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud and Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed following a press conference in Ankara, Turkey, December 11, 2024.
Murat Kula/Presidential Press Office/Handout via REUTERS

Ethiopian President Abiy Ahmed and Somali President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud announced a critical agreement to end a yearlong dispute over Ethiopia’s access to the Arabian Sea.

Press conference about Romania and Bulgaria, former Soviet Bloc countries becoming EU members.
REUTERS/Bernadett Szabo

For Romania and Bulgaria, former Soviet Bloc countries that are now EU members, the light finally changed from red to green on Thursday as EU interior ministers agreed to let the two countries fully join the border-free Schengen zone on Jan. 1.