Debate: Donald Trump and Kamala Harris play out a low-quality draw

Debates seem better for Harris than unscripted interviews, where her answers are often meandering and indecipherable. Trump was relatively calm and steady, though of course there were moments of madness | Watch Greg Sheridan’s verdict.

Kamala Harris and Donald Trump traded insults during their first presidential debate. Picture: Saul Loeb

Donald Trump and Kamala Harris fought out a low-quality, functional draw.

If you care primarily about illegal immigration, the rising cost of living or the general record of the Biden/Harris administration, you’ll vote Trump.

If you care about abortion rights, protecting Barack Obama’s Affordable Healthcare Act, or if you think Trump is just generally odious, you’ll vote for Harris.

Trump and Harris both communicated their core messages to their base constituencies.

Harris benefited from low expectations. She was infinitely better than Joe Biden, she spoke coherently and avoided answering questions intentionally, not because she was wandering verbally.

Debates, like courtrooms, seem better for Harris than unscripted interviews, where her answers are often meandering, convoluted and more or less indecipherable.

Trump, by his standards, was relatively calm and steady, though of course there were moments of madness.

Both Trump and Harris lie fluently, smoothly and routinely, without it seems the slightest hesitation.

Then there were the debate’s distinctly odd moments.

If you’re concerned that illegal Haitian migrants are eating the domestic cats and dogs of honest American burghers in Springfield, Ohio, Trump’s your man.

But if you want a candidate who is a proud gun owner, who boasts that on their watch America produced more oil, and more gas, than ever before in its history, then Kamala Harris says she’s the president for you.

Five minutes ago, Harris was a passionate advocate for a Green New Deal, for the most ambitious climate change action, for the end of domestic US oil pipelines, and as recently as four years ago, for a ban on fracking.

Though she says her values have not changed, Harris has in fact reversed herself on all those issues and many others.

But the ABC network moderators, who were nakedly pro-Harris and anti-Trump, made only one pro forma effort to ask Harris about any of these reversals.

Harris had more to lose and more to gain than Trump from this debate, because she is so much less well-known than Trump. The fact that she did moderately well, recited and repeated her core message lines and so on, therefore is hailed as a major boost for her.

But while the instant polls do suggest most people think Harris “won” the debate, it’s much less clear that this will result in a net move of votes towards Harris.

One fascinating instant poll result was that Trump extended his lead, after the debate, over who would manage the economy better. And indeed he leads on that measure by some 20 percentage points.

On foreign policy, Harris has managed to work out reasonable centrist positions which echo the policy of Joe Biden over the last three and a half years. Foreign policy is perhaps the main area where she doesn’t try to run away from Biden.

Yet Trump had powerful foreign policy arguments which are likely to resonate well with American voters.

Trump rightly identifies himself as a stronger supporter of Israel than Biden or Harris. It is indeed the fact that the Trump presidency produced historic peace agreements in the Middle East. The Biden presidency has produced conflict and near war in the Middle East.

Trump argues that the catastrophic way the US withdrew from Afghanistan under Biden and Harris encouraged Vladimir Putin to invade Ukraine, because Putin saw only weakness in Washington. Trump says Putin wouldn’t have invaded if he’d been president.

It’s in the nature of all counterfactuals that they’re unknowable and unprovable. It’s undeniable, however, that deterrence has failed under Biden. He failed to deter Putin in Ukraine, or Iran in its actions throughout the Middle East.

It would be much better if Trump would unequivocally state his support for Ukraine in its heroic resistance against Russia.

However, Trump makes three powerful points that might work well with many middle American voters.

One, under Trump, the word deterrence.

Two, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is a more urgent security issue for Europe than it is for the US. Europe is overall a bigger economy than the US. Yet the US is expected to provide the lion’s share of aid to Ukraine.

Three, president Trump would act to end the war in Ukraine. Although Moscow deserves to keep not one inch of Ukrainian territory, it’s increasingly likely there needs to be urgent negotiation for an end to fighting.

Detail will elude voters. but they can see the basic reality.

Harris succeeded in forcing Trump to discuss the past, which is always the weakest part of his pitch.

The big news: Taylor Swift, with her 283 million social media followers, endorsing Harris right after the debate.

For there are two debates. One happened on TV. Now comes the debate about the debate.

Swift will reinforce the idea of a Harris triumph.

That helps Harris, but I don’t think it’s decisive.