On Tuesday, September 10th, Donald Trump got the worst smackdown of his political career.
Standing in front of 67 million Americans, the former president attempted to remain composed as the debate began. After the first presidential debate, which ultimately sank President Biden’s re-election campaign, Trump’s collected demeanor had been widely praised by advisors and allies in his MAGA camp. His task this time, they told him, was to do it again.
He couldn’t do it.
Trump started off relatively grounded. He boasted about his economic successes and the tariffs he would impose on trade if re-elected. He talked about inflation. Then, suddenly, out of left field, he jumped to immigration. That was the end of his composure.
Within 10 minutes, he had called Vice President Harris, whom he frequently calls “Comrade Kamala” — a Marxist. 20 minutes in, he had launched into an angry tirade about his crowd sizes. And before the 30-minute mark, he had accused Haitian migrants in Ohio of stealing and eating their neighbors’ pets.
None of that was on the campaign’s agenda for the debate.
So what happened? How did he go from tariffs to pet-eating in half an hour?
One thing was clear: Harris was really, really effective in pushing his buttons and pushing the right ones too.
According to the New York Times, in her debate training, Harris spent large amounts of time training specifically on how to provoke Trump. That’s why it should come at no surprise that Harris picked crowd sizes as the instrument to poke the bear. “You will see during the course of his rallies he talks about fictional characters like Hannibal Lecter.” she quipped, with a sly smile. “He will talk about [how] windmills cause cancer. And what you will also notice is that people start leaving his rallies early out of exhaustion and boredom.” With that, a red-faced Trump was off, shouting into the mic about crowd sizes, rather than what he was supposed to be talking about, which was immigration. Within a minute, he proceeded to drop the now infamous pet-eating comment, and from there, it only got worse. Harris did not let up and laid more traps for Trump, saying Putin would “eat him for lunch” and indirectly calling him a “disgrace.” For Trump, who is rarely ever questioned or challenged within his own circle, these comments only further brought out the worst in him. Putting on a wide array of facial expressions that civilly conveyed her reactions, Harris sat back and watched. Across the room, Trump rambled, raved, floundered, and flopped. The debate was over. Kamala Harris had won.
Post-debate, Harris’s performance was widely praised, and for good reason. She managed to go on offense while remaining calm. She managed to stay away from the bottomless pit of lies. And she managed to upset Trump while still looking professional. It was the perfect storm and Trump couldn’t stay afloat.
To be clear, this is neither a glowing endorsement of Harris nor an outright condemnation of Trump. An entirely separate article could be written about the policies they have promoted, and an argument could be made for both sides. From the standpoint of debate strategy though, one thing has become abundantly clear: Kamala Harris has found out how to take down Donald Trump.
