TELEGRAPH
Kamala Harris and Donald Trump went head-to-head in their first and possibly only debate on Tuesday night.
The two presidential candidates, who are nearly neck and neck according to the latest polls, met in Pennsylvania, a divided and electoral vote-rich battleground state that is crucial to both candidates.
Following the debate, Telegraph columnist Tim Stanley gave his take, in short: “He was crazy and she was insufferable.”
Meanwhile, our US editor, Tony Diver, argued: “It is difficult to crown Harris the victor of a political debate in which she said so little about her own platform. But her attack strategy won her the night. Trump fell for it: hook line and sinker.”
Telegraph readers also weighed in with their judgement. An exclusive poll conducted by The Telegraph showed readers were largely divided over which candidate came out on top, with Kamala Harris taking a narrow lead with 55 per cent of the vote.
For many, Ms Harris’s performance came as a surprise. “She did better than expected, although the bar was set very low,” remarked Carl Sanderson.
Ian Gilman said: “I thought Harris was considerably more successful than Trump. She was articulate, focused, kept her cool, whereas he fell into all her traps, getting angry and going off into irrelevant ramblings. He had no view of the future, whereas she had a very positive, inclusive vision.”
‘Harris baited Trump and he took the bait’
Peter McMahon thought that “she baited him and he took the bait”.
“She talked about his rally crowds and he just had to defend himself, missing opportunities to attack her,” he continued.
However, some readers highlighted a lack of clarity over Kamala Harris’s policies. John Helliwell remarked: “I am struggling to understand any policy she has. It’s word salad at best. Vacuous at best.”
However, Andrew Martin weighed in arguing that neither presidential candidate had “one detailed policy description.”
Others criticised Kamala Harris’s record as vice president. One anonymous reader stated: “Harris is saying she’s going to do things when the Democrats have been in power for the last four years. Well, they should’ve done them when they were in power.”
Sharing a similar sentiment, John Helliwell commented: “Harris is attacking Trump’s record in office when she’s been the vice president for the last four years.”
While some readers were doubtful over some of Donald Trump’s “exaggerations” and unconfirmed claims, many deemed him the better debater and praised his strength and control.
John Dee thought the former president was “brilliant” on climate change, “strong” in his criticism of Obamacare, “clever” in his linking of the fall of Kabul with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and “excellent” when contrasting his record with that of Kamala Harris and Joe Biden.
John Dee also praised Donald Trump’s closing statement, “covering everything important to American voters”, whereas he deemed the vice president “weak” in comparison.
‘A very low-brow debate’
Others such as Al Murt and Duncan Macdonald also commended the former president’s final statement. However, Mr Macdonald, who supports Donald Trump, argued that he “should have been hammering her on every topic asking why she and Biden hadn’t done these things up to now and how they have failed for the last three years.”
Many readers were unconvinced by either candidate on the debate stage. One anonymous reader shared: “This was a very low-brow debate. From both sides. Good luck America, you deserve so much better.”
In a similar vein, reader Tessa Kelly gave her verdict: “Harris cannot debate, she is weak and lies all the time. Trump’s debating skills are non-existent.”
For Hubert Fras, it was “entertaining if pretty depressing”.
“Trump ranting and some fairly out-there statements. Kamala woodenly spouting a lot of unconvincing rote answers on the economy and foreign affairs. She didn’t make a case convincingly to be the president.
“Let’s see how it plays out in the poll that counts.”
‘The moderators were doing the debating for Harris’
Other readers, including Stu Whisson, questioned the impartiality of ABC News. Mr Whisson shared his scepticism: “It seems ABC is framing questions that frame an in for Harris.”
Russell Hardiman deemed the perceived lack of impartiality as “disgraceful”. Meanwhile, Akshat Sinha argued: “Trump debated three people and won.”
While some readers queried whether ABC was fact-checking Trump, Sarah Hiser believed “the moderators were doing the debating for Harris”.