Kamala Harris and Donald Trump faced each for the first time in a televised duel on Tuesday, September 10, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. For more than an hour and a half, the Democratic candidate relentlessly pushed her Republican rival, who found himself forced into a defensive posture. Le Monde's Washington correspondent, Piotr Smolar, answered readers' questions following the debate in a liveblog.
Hello Tfc! We can unambiguously say that this debate was lost by Donald Trump. The entire American press has noted this, including conservative media outlets, even if they are complaining about the remarks of the two ABC hosts, which they have deemed partisan. However, we need to be very cautious about the consequences of this debate. Let's wait a few days to see what impact it might have on the polls, which, in any case, are fragile and only moderately reliable instruments.
A large majority of Americans already have strong opinions about former president Trump. For some, he's the agent of transgression, the man who speaks out, loud and clear, against the political and cultural elites, the one who champions their identitarian resentment or sense of being socially downgraded. For others, he is the divider-in-chief, the perpetrator of an attempted coup d'état after his electoral defeat, the man charged with 91 counts in four criminal cases, found liable for sexual assault under civil law, and convicted of falsifying business records under criminal law. In the middle, between these two large blocs, there is a narrow but decisive swath of undecided voters, independents who have voted for one side or the other over the course of several elections, and, finally, moderate conservatives.
These voters are particularly courted in the swing states (Arizona, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia and North Carolina), as their votes could be decisive. From this point of view, Kamala Harris has made far more strategic efforts to win them over, in trying to open up her coalition. We saw this at the Democratic convention, in Chicago in August, with the attendance of several anti-Trump Republican figures. We saw it again during the debate, in which Harris was careful not to adopt very left-wing stances. She stuck to a narrative of American optimism, of the economy being beneficial to the greatest number of people, defending America's unique place in the world. Trump, on the other hand, did little to appeal to these undecided voters. We saw this in his choice of Ohio Senator JD Vance as his running mate. We also saw it in his inability to include his final rival in the primaries, Nikki Haley, in his campaign.
Swift's endorsement, at the end of a very favorable television evening, was both expected and very positive news for Kamala Harris. Expected, because she had already taken a stand for the Biden-Harris ticket in 2020. At the end of June 2022, she had condemned the conservative-dominated Supreme Court decision removing the federal right to abortion for all American women.
Let's start with the obvious: Celebrities don't actually win presidential elections, even when it comes to a global star like Taylor Swift. However, we mustn't overlook the influence that this support has among young voters, whose massive mobilization is crucial for the Democrats. In 2020, around 48 % of 18-29 year-olds voted, compared with just 40% in 2016. A concrete and very important impact that Swift could have would be the massive participation of her fans, the "swifties," in early voting procedures, which are already starting in some states over the coming days. The earlier Democratic voters cast their ballots, the more the Harris-Walz campaign will be able to focus its resources and time, in the home stretch, on locations – states, cities or suburban areas – that are the most important to win over on November 5.
You pose a crucial and rather worrying question, if we take into account Trump's statements over the last few weeks. The former president has been preparing his camp and American public opinion to contest the results, should they prove unfavorable to him. He has clearly stated at a rally that a defeat on November 5 would inevitably expose fraud. Over and above these remarks, the Trump camp has been preparing, state by state, well in advance, to wage a procedural campaign against the certification of the results – in Georgia, for example – with lawyers, legal scholars and MAGA (Make America Great Again) representatives serving on electoral commissions, which are usually purely technical bodies. Added to these possible legal procedures is, of course, the threat of violent individual actions, which are impossible to predict. Yet the way in which Trump's camp has allowed the toxic and false idea that Joe Biden stole the 2020 election to take root among its activist base over the last four years is not just a rhetorical matter. It's a strategy of deception that sets Trump-aligned activists at odds with reality.
You're absolutely right, Democrats are massively more likely to vote early. For a long time, Trump claimed that these voting methods, which particularly expanded during the Covid-19 period, allowed Democrats to cheat, to add fake ballots, to corrupt the count. Republican strategists have been fuelled by these conspiracy theories, which allege that their party would be at a disadvantage from the outset. At the Republican convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in July, I noted that, every day, a video of Trump was shown to delegates, in which the president invited them to vote, by any means necessary, to "flood" the polling stations. Despite this attempt at switching gears, it's impossible for him to resist: Donald Trump can't help but contest early voting.
All eyes are on these states, which I listed earlier. Tuesday's debate took place in Pennsylvania, which is a particularly hotly contested state, with 19 electoral college votes. The polls are inconclusive at this stage, apart from showing that both candidates are within the margin of error. It's all very close, and the margins for improvement are slim.
Harris delivered two specific messages to Pennsylvania voters in the debate. The first was to reiterate that, contrary to her past positions, she is indeed in favor of hydrocarbon extraction through hydraulic fracturing ("fracking"). The second message, which was very interesting and targeted, was delivered just as the two candidates were discussing the war in Ukraine and Vladimir Putin's ambitions. Harris called on Trump to explain his attraction to the Russian president to Pennsylvania's 800,000-member Polish community, adding that Putin would "eat you for lunch."
You're right to point out this precedent. No one took Trump, a businessman and TV star, seriously when he entered the Republican primaries in 2015. Then, most experts expected Clinton to win in 2016. Donald Trump was himself surprised by his success, for which he was totally unprepared, both in terms of his platform and his lack of a competent entourage for governing.
We must always be alert to the unclear, partisan or biased view that may prevail within the American East Coast media and expert bubble. Especially as we know how massively the conservative base has rallied behind Trump, against all odds and despite the scandals and indictments.
Having made this cautious reminder, let's add another obvious fact: Trump is not the same person he was in 2020, or in 2016. He's obviously older (78), but, more importantly, he's more extreme, darker, more bogged down in his own lies. He's a man who's playing for more than just an election, since his freedom is also at stake. Should he be defeated, it is likely that the three cases concerning him – including two at the federal level – which are still under investigation, could make significant progress. Finally, he's a man who believes too strongly in his own political power, in his power to attract, and he doesn't deploy a strategy to win over and appease voters who have become tense as a result of his excesses.
Fear and resentment are two of the most common themes used by Donald Trump's supporters. It's nothing new. The latest Republican remarks about Haitian refugees in Springfield, a small town of less than 60,000 inhabitants near Dayton, Ohio, are part of a strategy, not a lapse. It's worth noting the role played by Trump's running mate, Senator JD Vance, in exploiting this upsetting angle. He was the one who propagated the rumor that some undocumented immigrants were allegedly stealing and eating local residents' pets (cats, dogs). Trump repeated these remarks during the debate.
For the past three years, illegal immigration has been his favorite topic, along with inflation. The migration issue is exacerbated in the US, where Congress has been unable or unwilling to set out the groundwork for a balanced and appropriate asylum policy. Pressure at the US border with Mexico has reached unprecedented proportions over the last three years, although it has returned to a more manageable level since June, following Biden's belated executive decisions. Trump, on the other hand, depicts America as being invaded and decimated. He creates total confusion between migrants and criminals.
The Republican Party has been absorbed into the MAGA movement. The Republican National Committee (RNC) is politically and financially dominated by Trump's entourage. Conservative resistance to the former president exists only outside the party. It is a highly fragmented scene, with an uncertain level of influence, despite a few notable achievements such as when ex-representative Liz Cheney and her father, former vice-president Dick Cheney, rallied behind Kamala Harris.
What would happen if Trump were to lose, especially if it were a clear-cut defeat? It's impossible to predict at this stage. However, two points should be highlighted. First, the cowardice of Republican party leaders following January 6, 2021, when Trump's responsibility for the coup attempt was obvious. They prevented the impeachment procedure from coming to fruition and did not play fair with the House select committee that was set up in the months that followed. Secondly, make no mistake about it: Trumpism goes beyond Trump. The MAGA movement is also cultural, its roots have spread. Unlike the anti-tax activists of the late 2000s Tea Party movement, the MAGA movement has flooded the Republican Party's base, taking over local committees and influencing the internal balance of power. They'll still be there, even when Trump is no longer in the limelight.
It is difficult to measure. Audiences for these major televised debates remain very high, not to mention the countless spectacular extracts both sides broadcast on social media. However, this influence must indeed be considered in the light of two related factors. The first is powerful political polarization, which explains why many voters are already convinced one way or the other.
The second factor is siloed news consumption. In my reporting, I always ask the people I meet how they get their news. Older people have more confidence in so-called traditional sources. However, generally speaking, voters on the right have already entered the post-Fox News era. This conservative channel has played a major role in dividing the country and spreading lies about alleged electoral fraud. Today, however, it is playing second-fiddle to a new online ecosystem, made up of websites, podcasts, etc. The people consuming these sources are not primarily seeking to be informed, but to be reinforced in their ideas and prejudices. In-group dynamics prevail. On the left, we can also see the emergence of a similar network, which is more aggressive than the traditional media outlets, and refuses to let the MAGA movement seize a monopoly of the internet and social media sphere.