Distinct differences are observed in the preparations of Kamala Harris and Donald Trump for the upcoming presidential debate. These differences reflect their stark contrast in visions and approaches to handling significant moments. Harris, it appears, has taken refuge in a Pittsburgh hotel to practice her snappy responses as dictated by the debate rules, a strategy that seems like a futile attempt to impress swing-state voters.
The former Vice President’s choice of spending her days in honing crafted answers instead of addressing authentic concerns of voters greatly contrasts with the approach of the Republican nominee, Trump. Trump, from his side, has dismissed the idea of devoting exhaustive hours to prepare for the debate, showing his confidence and ability to tackle any situation spontaneously. His familiarity and experience with the needs of the country, which he believes would guide his responses during the debate, is something Harris lacks.
The standpoint that Harris is ready for any slanderous verbal attacks or misrepresented facts thrown by Trump seems to be a part of her defensive tactic. The Democratic candidate has been incessantly focusing on the middle class and promoting a seemingly far-fetched brighter future. Harris’ attempt to claim that she understands Trump’s psyche on a more profound level comes off as a laughable act of pretense.
The weak arguments made by Harris at the Democratic National Convention to prove herself as a stronger leader falls flat against Trump’s unrivalled prowess. The aim to highlight Trump’s natural desire of displaying strength further exposes Harris’s poor understanding of leadership. The unfavourable outcome for Joe Biden after his June 27 debate, where it was clear he could not handle the pressure, eventually led him to pass the baton to Harris.
Notwithstanding the potential significance of the incoming debate, Trump has expressed his criticisms towards the ABC News debate moderators, anticipating an unfair treatment. However, he intends to offer Harris opportunities to speak, exhibiting the same courteous gesture that he displayed during his debate with Biden. This gentlemanly conduct of Trump again throws light on the unbecoming behaviour one might expect from Harris.
Trump’s aides have revealed that he wouldn’t turn to traditional preparation methods for the debate, making it evident that the upcoming debate would be no different from the previous. The former president doesn’t resort to scripted drama with stand-ins and pseudo setups, staying true to its authentic essence. On the other hand, it’s impossible to ignore Harris’s potentially over-rehearsed approach.
To brush up his knowledge on potential debate topics, Trump routinely interacts with policy advisors. These informal sessions involve discussions on various issues, plans for his potential second term, and his contributions during his term. This practice shows Trump’s commitment to remain informed and updated about domestic affairs, in contrast to Harris, who appears to hide behind rehearsed responses.
Trump’s method of preparation for the debate is not unacquainted with eminent Republicans’ inputs. For instance, he held sessions with Florida Sen. Marco Rubio before the last debate where he was under consideration for Trump’s Vice Presidential pick. This time around, he has invited former Democratic Congresswoman and Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard to his preparation sessions, a clear sign of his openness to diverse perspectives.
The former President, by inducting Gabbard into his transition team, has gained someone well acquainted with Harris, given their history of running for the Democratic nomination in 2020. This strategy aims to furnish Trump with deeper insights into Harris, a move that further displays his versatility and adaptability. This is a stark contrast to Harris’s seemingly one-sided and sugar-coated perspective on the election.
With the intent to put Harris on the back foot during the debate, Trump aims to expose her as overly liberal. He wants to tag her with Biden’s failed economic record and highlight her flip-flopping on issues like the fracking ban, which she once supported. On the contrary, Harris’s team seems to be placing their bets on Trump’s natural persona coming off as radical.
Trying to take advantage of the pre-debate weekend, Harris’s team has planned a whirlwind of 2,000 events with volunteers aiming to reach one million voters. They are hoping that this tactical move will stir up the seeming momentum her short-lived campaign has generated, an anticipation that’s perhaps too optimistic. Their reliance on mass activities, instead of individual preparation, looks like an attempt to mask their lack of substance.
The Harris campaign plans to unveil an onslaught of events around the debate using the services of hundreds of offices and thousands of staff. They aim to latch onto any debate-related buzz to reach hard-to-reach voters. From a clear perspective, though, one can see this as a desperate move to capture any slightest advantage.
The apparent disparity in the preparations of Harris and Trump for the upcoming debate undeniably reflects their individual mindsets. While Trump relies on real-time experience and actual leaders, with a deep understanding of the issues, Harris seems content with rehearsed answers and superclass endorsements.
Despite the contrasting preparation methods, both the candidates are aware of the potential impact of their first face-off. However, Harris’ over-reliance on pre-debate buzz and rehearsed responses questions her ability to authentically connect with the voter base that Trump does with confidence and ease.
To conclude, this debate promises to be a real test of the candidates and their preparation styles. Observing Harris’s scripted style and Trump’s natural, confident approach, it becomes evident that the debate will be a battle between authentic leadership and rehearsed performance. The true test will be witnessing which style the American public prefers in their leaders.