The polling is in and Harris won the debate. But Democrats shouldn’t get cocky

A total of 67 million Americans watched the debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump on Tuesday, and the first polls taken after the event all show the vice-president gaining a little ground over the former president.
Harris’s lead ranges from three to five points, depending on the poll, but we need to be careful about drawing any exaggerated conclusions. One poll by Reuters has Harris leading by five points, but she had been leading by four in their previous poll published on 21 August. Another by Morning Consult also revealed similar results, but her lead had been three points the day before the debate and four the day of the debate.
All polls agree that Harris won by a large margin and that favorable ratings rose by as many as nine points. She is seen as better for protecting democracy by nine points and on abortion by 21 points.
But the new polls also make clear that Trump’s numbers really did not change much. According to interviews conducted by CNN before and after the debate, he is still given higher marks for handling the economy and immigration, the two top issues in the campaign.
A CNN flash poll found that debate viewers felt, by a margin of 63% to 37%, that Harris turned in a better performance onstage in Philadelphia – with 96% of her supporters saying that she had done a better job, while a smaller 69% majority of Trump’s supporters credited Trump with having a better night.
Similarly, in the eyes of most pundits, Harris came across as confident and did not lose her cool. She framed her performance around the idea that she represents a new generation that will not dwell on the past. She also laid out her plan for an “Opportunity Economy” with tax credits for small businesses and expansions of affordable housing and the Affordable Care Act, among other things.
She did a good job of contrasting her positive approach with Trump’s negativity. She linked him with tax cuts for billionaires, raised tariffs on China that were tantamount to a “20% sales tax” on consumers, an expansion of the powers of an unchecked presidency and the massive defunding of federal agencies and bureaucrats in the conservative Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025.
For his part, Trump chose a scowling face, perhaps to demonstrate that he is very serious. There was very little attempt at humor during the debate. He certainly came out swinging at Harris’s claim of millions of new jobs by claiming they were “bounce back jobs” that had been lost during the Covid epidemic. He roundly attacked her (and, of course the president Joe Biden’s) record on immigration and for the badly managed and deadly exit of American troops from Afghanistan. He also attacked the Biden administration for being unwilling to fire poorly performing government staff. He focused on her early opposition to fracking, a major issue in the battleground Pennsylvania, which also happened to be the location of the debate. He predicted that her election would mean the end of Israel, while she called for a two-state solution and a ceasefire.
Harris touted her background as a prosecutor and bragged of shutting down drug lords. She chided Trump for talking tough on crime while he has been indicted and convicted numerous times. Perhaps her best moment was when she drew a sharp distinction on reproductive rights. Women have been hurt by the striking down of Roe v Wade by the US supreme court, an issue that has drawn otherwise disengaged women voters to the polls and given Democrats victories in state and local elections.
She put Trump on the defensive for his changing positions, something which has hurt him also with Christian conservatives. He resorted to accusing the Democrats of supporting the possible execution of newborn infants. He was immediately fact-checked by the moderators on that one – and lost. Harris, he said, was “all talk” on abortion and relief on student loans because she knows that Congress will never pass anything nor will federal courts allow it.
Trump resorted to the bizarre at times. The small city of Springfield, Ohio, has seen entry of about 15,000 Haitian immigrants in recent months and he raised an unsubstantiated far-right claim that Haitian immigrants have been caught eating longtime residents’ pets. David Muir, chief anchor for ABC News and one of the moderators, immediately jumped in to say there was no evidence found of that, citing a statement from the local mayor.
Trump also claimed a huge rise in violent crimes under the Biden-Harris administration while the most recent report of the Federal Bureau of Investigation actually notes that violent crime is in dramatic decline. And, of course, he still claims that he won the 2020 election because the Democrats defrauded the system by allowing undocumented immigrants to vote. Again, the moderators stepped in.
Harris did have some weak moments. When asked if Americans were “better off” financially under the current administration, she completely ignored the question and talked instead about her vision of an “Opportunity Economy”. There are times when talking about the future is just not good enough. The economy is the elephant in the room and she is simply going to have to do better. Trump will be sure to remind her of that.
Similarly, the Israel-Gaza war is a major issue for younger voters and Democratic progressives. Her attempt at a middle ground may not be reassuring to those who believe a genocide is being conducted with American weapons.
At times, Trump was simply ridiculous. But he did not receive a knockout blow. “We have a nation in decline and Joe Biden and Kamala Harris know it.” While Harris hit him hard without appearing to bully him and turn him into a victim, he nonetheless had one of the most memorable lines of the evening: Harris “has been in for three and a half years, so why hasn’t she done” all the things she is promising? A good question that she will have to answer.
Harris won on points. She may have regained the momentum she had most of August, but the race is still at equilibrium.
Do these debates matter? They certainly have in the past. We all saw the strengths and weaknesses of both campaigners and now we have a clearer sense of what to watch from here.