According to initial polls most US citizens see Kamala Harris as the winner of the televised debate with Donald Trump. In the meantime, the role of the moderators, who intervened to fact-check Trump's statements on issues such as abortion laws or crimes committed by migrants, is fueling a discussion. Europe's press sees the US election campaign entering a new phase.
She can also get down to the nitty gritty
JOIN US ON TELEGRAM
Follow our coverage of the war on the @Kyivpost_official.
With Kamala Harris, the election campaign is gaining momentum, writes the Neue Zürcher Zeitung:
“An American TV debate is not a political seminar, but a rough and tumble martial art. The winner is the one who puts the opponent on the defensive, whether with their arguments, physical demonstrations of power or quick wit. ... This was an important moment for the politician, who is unknown in many parts of the country. She was able to prove that she is capable of standing up to a cunning opponent like Trump. Now she enters the hot phase of the election campaign, which is being fought in all corners of the country with renewed vigour. Her campaign management has already called for a second TV debate. It will be interesting to see whether Trump picks up the gauntlet. ... The dynamic has changed.”
Now it's Trump who seems to have no plan
Večernji list looks back on the developments of recent months:
“What happened to Biden in June is now happening to Trump. Compared to his opponent, the lively and focused Kamala Harris, Trump came across as frustrated, angry and somewhat lost the whole time. ... And he has good reason to be disgruntled. A few weeks ago when he was facing the ageing Biden, the White House appeared to be well within his grasp. It seemed like nothing could stop him, especially after the unsuccessful assassination attempt which earned him sympathy even from non-fans. ... Now Trump is not only no longer in the lead, he's unsuccessfully trying to keep up with his opponent. This was also the case in the televised debate.”
Eurotopics: Trump’s Team - What Does it Mean for Foreign Policy?
What Harris wants remains unclear
Harris didn't go into sufficient detail about her own plans, Washington correspondent René Pfister criticises in Der Spiegel:
“One might argue that a duel with a man who has never bothered with programmes is not the right place for such details. But most Americans know what to expect from Trump - for better or for worse. Harris, on the other hand, is still a blank slate for many voters. 'I'm clearly not Joe Biden,' Harris said at the end of the debate. What she plans to do differently from the president, however, remains entirely unclear. ... Yet American voters have a right to expect detailed answers from Harris. She should see the voters' curiosity as an opportunity - not as an imposition.”
No solutions for Gaza and Ukraine
On the website of radio station France Inter, columnist Pierre Haski bemoans a lack of clarity on foreign policy issues:
“Neither Donald Trump nor Kamala Harris provided any new information on what they would do regarding Ukraine or Gaza if they won. ... Without giving any details whatsoever, Donald Trump claimed he would resolve the two major crises within 24 hours, even before he moves into the White House. How? Presumably with the self-assurance of pseudo-strong men whose presence alone is enough. That's not much, and it's worrying. Kamala Harris, on the other hand, will continue to support Ukraine and has expressed a balanced attitude towards Israel: it has the right to defend itself but the war must end and the Palestinians have the right to their own state. How will she achieve what Biden has failed to do? She didn't say and probably doesn't have an answer.”
Opinions are free but facts are sacred
La Vanguardia praises the moderators:
“This debate will probably be remembered for the two ABC moderators and how they interrupted Trump to correct his lies. ... They were professionals who had access to the facts. ... Trump made more than two dozen false claims. ... Kamala Harris was sometimes ambiguous or unclear, but she didn't lie. ... The best defence of journalism is to explain what is happening without distorting the facts. One way to preserve this much-maligned profession is to refute and denounce lies with arguments and evidence. Opinions are free, but facts are sacred.”
A clear points win for the Democrat
De Standaard sees Harris as the indisputable winner:
“If Harris was still relatively unknown to many Americans before the debate, she isn't anymore. There's a good chance that sceptical voters will like what they saw. ... Already on the first topic, the country's economic situation, Harris showed that she was better prepared than Trump. ... On economics and domestic policy, Trump in particular performed poorly, simply repeating his anti-immigration mantra as the solution to all the problems. ... With her strong performance in this debate, Harris has undoubtedly boosted her chances of winning the presidency.”
A good candidate but a weak vice president
Harris was convincing as far as her plans for the future are concerned but less so regarding her track record, De Telegraaf concludes:
“Harris held up well in terms of content. ... Doubts about her ability to perform expressed before the debate proved to be unfounded, even if she once again failed to justify the many U-turns she has made on various issues. The Democrat laid out her plans with verve, including tax cuts for middle-income groups and measures for the housing market. She also distanced herself from the incumbent president and presented herself as the leader of a 'new generation'. However, to one question she had no answer: if her plans are so important, why is she not implementing them now, as vice president?”
The debates are not decisive
A successful TV appearance does not guarantee an election victory, Iltalehti stresses:
“Kamala Harris got exactly the debate she wanted. ... But whether that will be enough is another matter altogether. In 2016 Hillary Clinton won all the debates against Trump but lost the election. Joe Biden won both debates against Trump in 2020 but he only narrowly won the election. What's more, the debates may not reach the ten or so percent of the electorate who are still wondering which candidate to for or whether to vote at all. Apart from that, Trump's political image is quite exceptional. Even if he had read out the Epic of Gilgamesh for an hour and a half, his approval ratings would probably remain stable at 44 percent, where they have been for the last month.”
Reprinted from Eurotopics. You can find the original here.
You can also highlight the text and press Ctrl + Enter
