US Sutra | After the debate: What lies ahead in the US presidential race

Like many millions across the world, I watched the Donald Trump-Kamala Harris debate live on ABC on September 10. I was in Singapore, so, given the time difference, it was already, rather ominously, the morning of 9/11. I could not but think of the repercussions of the debate to the future of the United States. Could it possibly be as historic as jetliners crashing into the twin towers? For I could not think of another US election in living memory when the stakes for America, or indeed for the world, are so high.

But let us get the critical review part of the debate out of the way at the very outset. After all, we have been inundated with commentary ever since. Sadly, but predictably, it has been entirely on party lines. Where is the space for an independent assessment, whether in the United States or, closer home, in India? The erosion and deliberate undermining of that tiny sliver where truth-telling is possible is one of the tragedies of our times.

More from Opinion

Sergio Gor’s senate hearing signals the future of Indo-American ties How Trump’s ‘War on Drugs’ buildup against Venezuela has a hidden agenda

So, let me weigh in on a question which we might think is important, but actually, as I shall soon explain, is not: who won? I would say it was a tie, with Kamala Harris doing marginally better than Trump. Why do I say that? Because she performed much better than expected. She came across as much more poised and balanced, more likeable and, yes, normal than Trump.

Trump, on the other hand, was angry and defensive, bitter and extreme by turns, a man clearly cornered more than concerned, desperately trying to keep himself, his party, and, most importantly, his vision of America, alive. A beleaguered Trump, however, was not knocked down. Though bruised and bloodied, he was still standing tall and fighting back. He did not give Harris a walkover.

Impact Shorts

More Shorts

How army remains Pakistan’s biggest business house

60 years on, why 1965 India–Pakistan war still matters

Harris, to carry on with the boxing metaphor, may even have won on points, but neither side scored a knock-out.

An unintended consequence of Harris’s advantage over Trump in the battle of perceptions was to bring out, for those who cared to see it, the more human, vulnerable side of the man many love to hate. He was capable of being sad, angry, hurt, even reflective, despite almost pleading to the American people to believe that he wasn’t the monster that Harris was making him out to be. Trump’s plain-speaking, even to the point of being offensive and imprudent, made him much more like ordinary Americans than the tutored and politically correct, but vicious rhetoric emanating day and night from the other side.

Also, some might have liked the Harris mime show on the side while Trump talked, which ABC made sure the viewers watched. But, on the other hand, others may have found it childish sledging. When you don’t have substance, you want to discredit your opponent by making them look bad, weird, or deviant. Trump, in contrast, mostly had a set expression while Harris spoke, with an occasional frown or even angry smirk. He never once looked at Harris or gave her the respect of an opponent who was engaged in a fair fight.

Which brings us to the nub of the matter. Was it actually a fair fight or a rigged show? From earrings that resembled earphones to accusations of leaked questions, not to mention the moderators being on Harris’s side, more and more doubts are being raised with each passing day. Many are even calling it a three-versus-one show. With Harris and both the ABC anchors, David Muir and Linsey Davis, together battling Trump.

There is some truth in that. After all, both the network and its moderators repeatedly fact-checked, even corrected Trump, without once tendering the same treatment to Harris. Why? Was there a prior plan in place to call out Trump and go easy on Harris? How is that within seconds, ABC had secured a response on Trump’s claim that immigrants were eating cats and dogs in Springfield, Ohio? They never corrected Harris over her accusations and distortions, repeatedly denied and corrected by Trump, about his views on abortion or the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville.

That is why I would say that regardless of who won, ABC and the US media on the whole, clearly lost the debate. Their biases and slants became so quickly and obviously evident that the American people, especially undecided ones, might be inclined to offer their own corrective if not openly, then definitely in the privacy of the voting booth. Why do I say this with so much certitude? Because we have seen it again and again in India. The more the media, especially international media criticised Narendra Modi, the more the majority of Indians liked him. Will Trump also gain from what may be termed the “Modi effect”? The more the US media slams him the more ordinary Americans will sympathise with, and eventually, vote for him.

That, of course, remains to be seen in November.

But, if Harris may have come out better on perception, she was way short on policy. As Trump asked in his concluding remarks, what has the administration of which she is number two, done in these last four years? Shouldn’t voters decide if they want four more years of the same rather than what is being promised as the “opportunity economy”? Nobody, I dare say, is clear what that phrase means. Generally speaking, polls show that Americans believe that Trump will be better for the economy than Harris.

This brings us to the crucial issue: how important are presidential debates, really? That they affect the general perception, both within the US and worldwide, cannot be denied. But do they change voter behaviour? Almost all registered Democrats and loyalists would have voted for Harris regardless of how she performed on Tuesday. Will some of them defect towards Trump? Not likely.

But has she garnered new supporters from among the undecided? That is not likely either. The crucial section of the swing voters is likely to keep their options open till the very end. This election, though much more closely contested that if Biden had continued as the Democratic candidate, is far from decided yet. Regardless of how the media has called the debate, Trump is not out of the reckoning yet.

If my assessment of the US is right, it is Trump who is on course to win. Why? Because Americans like strong leaders, those who are likely to raise their self-esteem at home and their global standing abroad. Unless the election itself, as many believe of the Tuesday debate, is stacked. Given that no one actually wants that, it is likely that many crucial segments of the populace, even if they keep their cards close to their chests, will vote much more decisively in November than we might expect right now.

Though too close to call right now, the results will show a clear winner this time around.

The writer is an author and columnist. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.