In their first presidential debate, former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris sparred over key issues. They accused each other of deepening America’s divisions. The debate tackled topics like migration, fracking, and Israel’s war on Gaza. The event lacked the usual live audience. The two candidates faced off at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia.
Millions of Americans watched from homes, bars, and watch parties. Outside the venue, protesters urged Harris to support a ceasefire in Gaza. Polls show Harris and Trump neck and neck. We gathered insights from political experts and observers on who came out on top.
Barbara Perry, Presidential Historian, University of Virginia:
Perry noted that Trump’s base received plenty of “red meat,” but Harris offered a more hopeful vision. “The vice president contrasted the specifics of her future-focused policies with Trump’s generalities about a dark past,” Perry explained. Harris needed to appeal to undecided moderate voters, especially in swing states, and she managed to avoid any disqualifying gaffes. Perry highlighted Harris’s post-debate win when pop star Taylor Swift publicly endorsed her, a move that could help sway key demographics.
Michelle Austin Pamies, Haitian-American Leader and Lawyer
Pamies appreciated that the debate exposed the “ugliness” of some Republican claims about Haitian immigrants. She referenced a disturbing comment Trump made about immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, supposedly eating pets, which Pamies found deeply offensive. “I’m glad this was discussed on a national stage. It deserved to be called out for its repulsiveness,” she said. Pamies was relieved. The moderator clarified that no credible reports supported Trump’s statement. The moderator called it a deliberate attempt to “other” immigrant communities.
Reem Abuelhaj, Spokesperson for No Ceasefire No Vote Pennsylvania
Abuelhaj reflected the frustration of many protesters gathered outside the debate, expressing anger over Harris’s stance on Gaza. “Vice President Harris has made it clear she’ll continue Biden’s policy of unconditional military and financial support for Israel’s war on Gaza,” she said. With Pennsylvania as a critical swing state, Abuelhaj pointed out that 60,000 Democratic voters in the state had written in another candidate during the primary rather than vote for Biden. “There’s rage and grief over the ongoing genocide, and Harris’s position could alienate voters,” she warned
John Feehery, Republican Strategist
Feehery noted a perceived bias in the debate moderation. “The moderators seemed more focused on fact-checking Trump while letting Harris’s ‘whoppers’ slide,” he observed. While Feehery believed Harris gained an edge in terms of style, he emphasized that the public is less concerned with the candidates’ attacks on each other and more interested in hearing plans to fix the economy. “I’m not sure the voters got what they wanted from this debate,” he concluded.
Kelly Dittmar, Director of Research, Center for American Women and Politics, Rutgers University-Camden
Dittmar praised Harris for successfully challenging Trump and pushing him to lose composure. “She addressed the criticism that she hasn’t been substantive enough on policy, an area where women in politics often face more scrutiny than men,” Dittmar said. Trump’s refusal to directly engage with Harris, choosing instead to avoid looking at her, could come across as dismissive, particularly to women voters. “Meanwhile, Harris made direct eye contact and wasn’t afraid of confrontation, a bold move that could resonate with many,” Dittmar added. However, she acknowledged that Harris’s facial expressions might draw mixed reactions, with some seeing her emotive responses as genuine and others criticizing them as overly dramatic.
Aaron Kall, Director of Debate, University of Michigan
Kall said the Trump-Harris debate was a stark contrast to the fiery June debate between Trump and Biden. He described Tuesday night’s event as “calmer but still combative.” Kall gave Harris a slight edge in the debate but cautioned against reading too much into its impact on the overall election. “While Harris won the night, it’s unclear if this debate will shift the race or sway undecided voters,” Kall said.
Shannon Smith, Executive Director, FracTracker Alliance
Smith expressed disappointment that neither candidate offered real solutions to the environmental and health impacts of fracking. As a resident of Pennsylvania, one of the top fracking states in the U.S., Smith criticized both parties for failing to address the concerns of people living in fracking-heavy areas. “We’ve dealt with the negative effects of fracking for years, and there’s still no political will to impose common-sense protections,” she said. Smith highlighted that while fracking has devastating impacts on the environment and human health, the debate didn’t touch on meaningful plans to address these issues. “We need leadership that prioritizes public health and environmental safety,” she urged.
Verdict: A Split Decision
The Trump-Harris debate left both sides claiming victory but also sparked frustration. Trump delivered the fiery rhetoric his base thrives on, while Harris maintained composure and avoided mistakes that could hurt her appeal to moderates. Harris’s endorsement from Taylor Swift was a notable win, especially among younger and female voters. However, her stance on Israel and fracking left some observers and protesters deeply dissatisfied.
In the end, neither candidate made a decisive blow, and it remains unclear whether this debate will significantly shift the race. The upcoming debates and campaign strategies will likely determine who can win over the key undecided voters in swing states like Pennsylvania.
