The debate: a missed opportunity

Alan Cai

September 13, 2024

The presidential debate which happened this past week contained nothing unexpected: Trump stuck to his typical rhetoric of spewing conspiracy theories and factually unsound claims while Harris stuck to her largely pre-rehearsed set of talking points. While some point to Trump’s “they’re eating the dogs” line as the defining moment that ultimately gave Harris the edge. However, when taken as a whole, the debate was predominantly a stalemate, and both sides did not provide enough offense to win decisively.

While discussing undocumented immigration and border security, Trump claimed that immigrants in the town of Springfield, Ohio were eating residents’ pets. The claim appears to have spawned from a Facebook post from a town resident claiming that a neighbor’s daughter’s cat was seen being hung from a tree and eaten. Springfield, a small town of 60,000 people, has received an influx of up to 20,000 Haitian migrants in the past several years. It is important to note that many Haitian migrants are documented immigrants who moved to the area legally. The claim was promulgated in the days leading up to the debate by Trump’s Ohioan running mate, JD Vance, who similarly used the claim to dehumanize foreign individuals.

Although the line Trump used is a first for him on the national debate stage, his negative sentiment toward undocumented immigrants and foreign-born individuals is nothing new. Although conservative, Trump’s hyperbole is surprisingly similar to that of alt-left 20th-century cult leaders such as Father Divine and Jim Jones who also united their base by directing their hatred at a common enemy and relentlessly vilifying those communities by painting false or extremely exaggerated pictures.

Yet, the egregiously false claim begs the question of whether or not Trump purposely dropped the line to direct the audience's attention away from other potentially more damaging debate topics such as abortion and January 6th. With the nation’s attention fixated on dogs and cats in Springfield, less emphasis will be placed on the former two topics and more will be allocated to the border security debate.

Overall, the debate was a missed opportunity for both candidates. Harris, especially during the first few rounds of questions, did not attempt to hide her rehearsed lines, making the talking points feel less genuine and convincing. Her background as a public defender and later attorney general did not reflect well during the debate. Harris also should have pressed Trump harder on the false claims he was making. Perhaps slightly more direct answers to questions such as why the Biden administration has continued Trump's conservative Trump policies as well as answers for the Afghanistan withdrawal would have been helpful. Blatantly dodging questions, pointing fingers, and making noncontextual claims such as complaints about inheriting the worst economy since the Great Depression (context: Biden was elected amid a global pandemic) did not help to build trust and confidence with voters. Although many independent voters are already not keen on voting for Trump, Harris must still make her case for why she is a strong candidate. Trump, as expected, spent too much time and effort on the defensive. The abortion issue was handled rather sloppily while Trump was easily goaded by Harris into talking about his rallies. Instead of defending the integrity of his rallies, Trump could have gained more ground with a comeback about Harris’s lack of press conferences or something like that. Pundits came into the debate predicting an overwhelming victory for Harris and the fact that she barely inched away with a rhetorical upper hand means Trump won.