‘Trump Brought Darkness; Harris Brought Light’: 14 Writers on Who Won the Presidential Debate

 Opinion

Guest Essay

‘Trump Brought Darkness; Harris Brought Light’: 14 Writers on Who Won the Presidential Debate

Sept. 11, 2024, 5:03 a.m. ET

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/11/opinion/harris-trump-debate-winner-loser.html

A photo illustration of Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. Both are speaking and making similar gestures.

Credit...Illustration by Shoshana Schultz/The New York Times

Share full article

201

By New York Times Opinion

Times Opinion asked 14 of our columnists and contributors to watch the presidential debate on Tuesday night and assess who won and who lost. We also asked them to weigh in on the quality of the debate. Were the candidates inspiring, or was their face-off a depressing sign of everything that’s wrong with American politics?

Here’s what our columnists and contributors thought of the event. In a new feature, readers can score the debate, too, by dropping a pin on the scorecard to see how they stack up against other readers, as well as our contributors.

Who Won the Debate?

“Harris won, and it wasn’t close.”

– David French

Click on the grid to share who you think won the debate and how it went.

Who won and why

Kristen Soltis Anderson, contributing Opinion writer The debate was in some ways more substantive than I expected, but the bar was dreadfully low. Kamala Harris has sought to avoid being tied to the current state of affairs in our country by treating Donald Trump as the de facto incumbent, as he has dominated the unpleasantness of the past decade of our politics. Trump repeatedly aided her in that quest Tuesday night.

Binyamin Appelbaum, member of the editorial board Harris. She kept Trump on the defensive for much of the night, and she was effective in communicating that Trump is both dangerous and ridiculous. Where she continues to struggle is in making the case for Kamala Harris.

Josh Barro, author of the newsletter Very Serious Harris was well prepared, forward-looking and — unlike Hillary Clinton in 2016 — effective at positioning herself as more in touch with ordinary Americans than Trump. He was rambling, bitter and too distracted to drive home his strongest attacks or effectively tie Harris to President Biden’s record.

Charles M. Blow, Times columnist This was a clear win for Harris. She needled Trump, rebutted and debunked him and still offered a positive message and vision for America’s future. Trump brought darkness; Harris brought light.

Jamelle Bouie, Times columnist Harris won for the simple reason that she demonstrated poise and intelligence in the face of a belligerent and basically incoherent Trump. Were there points when she could have given stronger answers? Of course. But on balance, she excelled, and Trump flailed.

Michelle Cottle, political writer for Opinion Harris stayed composed and forcefully prosecuted her case while burrowing deep, deep under Trump’s skin. She had him ranting and babbling pretty much from the jump. I kept expecting him to have a rage-induced nosebleed.

Liam Donovan, Republican strategist Harris stopped short of closing the deal with the audience at home, but she successfully baited Trump into self-indulgent, spittle-flecked tangents that squandered a prime opportunity to sow doubts about his opponent.

Ross Douthat, Times columnist Harris started out with a quaver in her voice and never found her way to much of an affirmative policy case for her candidacy, but she did find her way to a smooth prosecutorial style that pushed Trump, again and again, away from his case against the Biden record and back into his distinctive blend of grievance and vainglory. Trump had some good moments, and it wasn’t a rout, but she was as disciplined and effective as we’ve seen her, and he was much too much himself.

David French, Times columnist Harris won, and it wasn’t close. That doesn’t mean this debate will be decisive (the nation is too closely divided, and we’re too far from Election Day to make that judgment), but Harris accomplished everything she wanted to accomplish. She was poised, confident and passionate. By contrast, Trump grew steadily angrier and more conspiratorial as the night went on. It was as if Harris had been debating an avatar for MAGA Twitter and not a former president of the United States.

Matt Labash, author of the newsletter Slack Tide Harris started tight and tepid and grew into her prosecutorial best self. She had a lot of material to work with. Trump started utterly assured, as he always is about the lies he tells (he has plenty of practice), and grew ever shakier as the night wore on. A nervous, tangelo-colored man.

Katherine Mangu-Ward, editor of Reason Harris did a better job of formulating coherent sentences, which wasn’t a given. (Though she did not answer many of the questions.) Many of Trump’s comments were intelligible only to those who are already heavily invested in the MAGA corners of the internet. But let’s be honest, they’re not sending their best.

Daniel McCarthy, editor of the periodical Modern Age By staking ground as the outsider candidate, Trump won. He emphasized his willingness to fire officials who performed badly, while Harris boasted about a long line of establishment Republicans who have endorsed her, including Dick Cheney. If Washington needs profound change, it won’t come from the vice president.

Pamela Paul, Times columnist Harris was authoritative, genuine and persuasive. She articulated American values with eloquence. Her attacks were extremely effective. Trump hated — his face twisted with fury — that she called him “weak” and mocked his rallies. When it came to sparring, her amused contempt won over Trump’s frowns and scowls.

Lydia Polgreen, Times columnist Did Trump have a strategy in this debate? If he did, there was no evidence of it. He failed to land any blows on Harris, who smiled, shook her head and stayed above the fray while skillfully avoiding any sharp questions on her shifting positions. It was a strong performance by Harris that was made much more effective by a disastrous one from Trump.

Most pivotal moment

Anderson When he spent the opening of his first answer on immigration — a topic he should have nailed — taking the bait and giving an answer on rally crowd size, it was clear how the night would go.

Appelbaum When Harris called out Trump for endangering the health of pregnant women and for denying women autonomy over their own lives and bodies, it was evident that she spoke from a place of deep conviction and moral clarity.

Barro Every moment when obvious bait was dangled in front of Trump and he ate it — most memorably when Harris got him to defend how interesting his rallies are but also when he took the moderators’ invitations to again dispute the 2020 election result and defend the honor of the Jan. 6 rioters. All the time he spent doing this was time he wasn’t tying Harris to the Biden record. “I was disappointed, frankly, that she was not pressed more on that, on the record of the last three and a half years,” Senator Marco Rubio said on ABC after the debate. Whose fault was that but Trump’s own?

Blow Harris turning the tables on Trump, painting this faux strongman as weak and telling him that Vladimir Putin would “eat you for lunch.” She baited him, threw him off, then punched him.

Bouie When Harris mentioned their respective crowd sizes. That, more than anything, sent Trump into a spiral from which he couldn’t recover.

Cottle Trump was on his heels the entire time. On abortion, energy, Gaza — you name it — he sounded like your unhinged grandpa. And the split screen really worked to Harris’s benefit: When listening to Trump, she wore a look that mixed concern and puzzlement to telegraph, “This man is not well.”

Image

Donald Trump and Kamala Harris seen on a split screen during their debate.

Credit...Damon Winter/The New York Times

Donovan Harris’s segue from immigration and border security to Trump’s rallies managed to short-circuit the moderators’ desire to draw out the topic further, neutralizing her biggest vulnerability and transforming the conversation into an indignant debate over crowd size. A perfect encapsulation of the night.

Douthat Harris found her rhetorical footing on abortion, but it was when she pivoted into a dig on Trump’s rally sizes that she showed she could bait him.

French When she mocked his rallies. That changed the entire dynamic of the debate. She baited him, and he responded with the most unhinged screed of the night. “In Springfield,” he said, “they’re eating the dogs. The people that came in — they’re eating the cats. They’re eating the pets of the people that live there.” She was in control of the debate from that moment forward, and I’ve not seen anyone truly control a debate with Trump.

Labash Trump’s nondefense of his behavior on Jan. 6 was so ridiculous — he tried to change the subject to illegal immigration at one point, as if disgruntled Mexicans had invaded the Capitol at his behest — that even if Harris had stumbled out drunk and dribbled down her blouse, Trump still might have lost the debate for himself.

Mangu-Ward Harris successfully poked Trump in the softest part of his underbelly: his rallies. He never fully recovered his equilibrium. Here’s how much time he wasted reacting to her jab about his crowds: “People don’t go to her rallies. There’s no reason to go. And the people that do go, she’s busing them in and paying them to be there and then showing them in a different light, so she can’t talk about that. People don’t leave my rallies. We have the biggest rallies, the most incredible rallies in the history of politics.”

McCarthy Winning the coin toss before the debate even began set up the most pivotal moment, which was Trump’s closing question for Harris, asking why she and the administration in which she serves haven’t already done the things she promises to do.

Paul Trump cited his friendly relations with Putin and the praise he has gotten from Viktor Orban, both autocrats. Harris explained that they wanted him in power because they know “they can flatter you and manipulate you.” In one swoop, he showed how naïve, ignorant and dangerous he would be for American foreign policy.

Polgreen It was when she slipped in a mention of crowd sizes early in the debate — a test of his discipline. And he took the bait, hook, line and sinker. From that moment, everything seemed to unfold on her terms, not his. She just laid blow after blow, pointing out that he had done everything from praising Putin and Xi Jinping to inviting the Taliban to Camp David. Harris was relentless but did it with a smile.

Something small but revealing …

Anderson He clearly saw her tell Mike Pence “I’m speaking” in their debate four years ago. It must have stuck with Trump, given that he tried to use a similar line himself.

Appelbaum Trump kept describing the United States as a failing nation. His candidacy remains the best evidence for that claim. The Republican candidate for president of the United States baldly asserted on national television that doctors are executing babies after birth. He said that immigrants are stealing and eating Americans’ pet dogs and cats. He defended the rioters who attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6. Even if he loses the election, this debate was a reminder — though, frankly, one we didn’t need — that our democracy has big problems.

Barro The Polymarket prediction market (in which people outside the United States bet money on the election outcome) moved three points toward Harris during the debate. This strikes me as an overreaction — few debates are pivotal enough to decide an election — but it reflects a clear verdict that Harris won this one.

Blow “They’re eating the dogs. The people that came in — they’re eating the cats.” When Harris got under Trump’s skin, which was strategic, he fell back on anger and conspiracy theories. There is no evidence that Haitian immigrants are eating pets.

Bouie Trump’s recapitulation of his running mate’s smears against Haitian immigrants in Ohio is a sign that the former president is marinating in a right-wing media ecosystem that, along with his own incapacities, renders him unable to perceive reality.

Cottle So many magical moments. But let’s go with Trump using Orban as a character witness. Trump clearly thinks “strongman” is a compliment.

Donovan Harris plugging her fossil fuel bona fides in must-win Pennsylvania, playing up the largest increase of domestic oil production in history on the Biden administration’s watch.

Douthat Harris talking up Dick and Liz Cheney’s endorsements and then attacking Trump for hosting the Taliban at Camp David, while Trump promised to end the bloodshed in Ukraine and warned about the risk of a World War III: We’ve come a long way from the George W. Bush era.

French The split screen. The difference between a dour, glaring Trump and the much younger Harris was obvious, and her laughter at his lies was its own form of rebuttal. The contrast with the last debate, when Biden sometimes appeared frozen or confused, could not have been more profound.

Labash While Harris constantly looked at Trump, usually with disbelief and mockery in her best Maya Rudolph style, even when she was laying down the hardest accusations about him (dictators love him, his military staffers loathed him), by my count, Trump almost never looked at Harris. I’m guessing because he’s afraid of facing her, much as he is of facing the truth about himself.

Mangu-Ward Harris tried to hit Trump on his bonkers, economy-destroying plan to impose an up to 20 percent tariff on imported goods. But by calling it a sales tax, she dumbed it down too much to land. Still, he didn’t mount a strong defense.

McCarthy Harris’s lectern was too short, accentuating how much smaller she is.

Paul Trump’s one-liners often sounded like unintentional jokes: “I have been a leader on fertilization.” “They’re eating the dogs. The people that came in — they’re eating the cats.” “Where is our president? We don’t even know if he’s our president.” But his one-liners also made clear his re-election would be no joke: “Our elections are bad.” “We have a nation that is dying.” “They respect me. They don’t respect Biden.”

Polgreen I was not especially surprised that Trump repeated a vile lie about Haitian immigrants eating cats, but the embrace of what is essentially a blood libel by a major party candidate for president should shock us. It is being waved off in many quarters as just more of the same, but to me, it represents the crossing of a line. This is disgusting gutter stuff, and it is a measure of Trump’s desperation that he grasped for it.

More on the presidential debate

Opinion | Chris Christie

Chris Christie: I’ve Debated Trump 6 Times. Here’s What Harris Needs to Do Tonight.

Sept. 10, 2024

Opinion | Jamelle Bouie, Ross Douthat, David French, Michelle Goldberg and Tressie McMillan Cottom

‘It’s Not Pandering When You Tell the Truth’: Five Columnists Game Out the Debate

Sept. 10, 2024

Charles M. Blow, Jamelle Bouie, Ross Douthat, David French, Pamela Paul and Lydia Polgreen are Times columnists.

Kristen Soltis Anderson is a contributing Opinion writer, a Republican pollster and the author of “The Selfie Vote.”

Binyamin Appelbaum is a member of the editorial board.

Josh Barro writes the newsletter Very Serious and is the host of the podcast “Serious Trouble.”

Michelle Cottle writes about national politics for Opinion and is a host of the podcast “Matter of Opinion.”

Liam Donovan is a senior political strategist at Bracewell who previously worked for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. He is also a host of the “Lobby Shop” podcast.

Matt Labash, formerly a national correspondent at The Weekly Standard, is the author of “Fly Fishing With Darth Vader” and writes the newsletter Slack Tide.

Katherine Mangu-Ward (@kmanguward) is the editor in chief of Reason magazine.

Daniel McCarthy is the editor of Modern Age: A Conservative Review.

Source photographs by Win McNamee, via Getty Images, and Brian Snyder, via Reuters.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, WhatsApp, X and Threads.

===