Mark your calendars as Kamala Harris sets off to debate Donald Trump, in a turbulent race that seems unlike any before, scheduled to take place at 9 P.M. E.T. on Tuesday, in Philadelphia. With ABC hosting the exchange and the network anchors David Muir and Linsey Davis chairing the event, one can predict a focus on key topics such as economy, crime, immigration, and ongoing wars in Ukraine and Gaza. There’s no denying the added dimension the election results acceptance, especially Trump’s stance, brings to this event.
Notwithstanding the widespread belief, Harris’ last chance to sway the voters isn’t confined to this debate. However, it presents an opportunity for her to shift the narrative from a simple thumbs up or down for Trump vote to a high-stakes, purposeful platform.
While it’s worth noting that Biden’s career took a hit on the debate stage, Harris has managed to shine whenever she graced it. Her breakthrough moment in the California attorney general race in 2010 came on a similar platform, when her opponent, Steve Cooley, revealed his intention to exploit public resources. Harris’s comeback was short and sharp, earning her a tiny victory over Cooley.
Fast forward to California’s U.S. Senate race in 2016, Harris’s opponent, Representative Loretta Sanchez, turned the debate into a spectacle. After a dramatic performance by Sanchez, Harris chose to respond with a poignant comment, highlighting the clear divide between the candidates. Not only did she win, but she did so by a landslide.
Fast forward to four years later when Harris engaged Mike Pence in the Vice-Presidential debate. A fly chose to land on Pence’s hair and stayed there, metaphorically highlighting the stagnant state of his incumbency. Harris hadn’t to do much to steal the spotlight.
Unlike the adept crowd-worker Trump, Harris has maintained a tight ship, preferring measured speeches and scripted events. Her campaign fancily accompanies her entrance to Queen B’s ‘Freedom,’ followed by well crafted speeches filled with policy announcements and popular slogans. The short public appearances further exemplify her message.
As time passes, the lack of on-the-record interviews and press conferences from Harris’s corner becomes increasingly evident. The rarity of such instances became newsworthy when Harris unexpectedly approached a screaming press corps, leaving them baffled. Meanwhile, Trump and his running mate, J. D. Vance, have courted the press almost forty times compared to Harris and Tim Walz’s single major network interview.
Throughout the campaign, Harris has presented a facade of resilience, but her reticence to face media on an impromptu basis raises suspicions about it. Despite marshaling the party’s base successfully, the manufactured media interaction reveals a duality in her campaign narrative.
As a former attorney general of California with a reputation for ruthless prosecution, it’s strange that Harris has seldom been seen answering questions posed to her. Harris is fond of trivializing Trump, often using humor and sarcasm to depict him as a non-threat. It’ll be interesting to see if she can maintain her cavalier attitude in person.
The voters look forward to the impending debate and are keen to get a glimpse of Harris’s real persona. Can she move beyond the strategic containment of her public image and show the fearlessness she so often alludes to? Only time will tell.
Despite the well-oiled campaign machine Ms. Harris seems to have, her lack of direct engagement with the media might come as a worrying sign to voters. Is she as upfront and bold as projected, or does she require a script to make herself heard?
The debate will be an acid test for Harris. Can she manage to outwit Trump without a script? Or will her well-curated public image come crashing down along with the voters’ faith?
Harris’s dismissive attitude towards Trump’s comments about her race during the CNN interview was telling. ‘Same old tired playbook,’ she said, brushing the question aside. ‘Next question, please.’ Her ability to hold her own against Trump during the debate in person will clarify her stance.
Still, voters are eager to gain a fresh perspective on Harris beyond her well-rehearsed speeches and controlled media appearances. The real test of her character will be the way she holds herself when confronted with unexpected challenges during the debate.
Although Trump might come across as erratic, he keeps the voters engaged with his open dialogue approach. Will Harris’s overly curated campaign work in her favor, or will it expose the fearfulness lurking beneath the carefully managed persona she presents?
Regardless of the debate’s outcome, this occasion offers Harris a golden opportunity to reframe the electoral narrative and win over undecided voters. However, it remains to be seen if she will rise to the occasion or continue playing it safe by sticking to her script.