BBC:
Kamala Harris entered Tuesday’s night’s presidential debate with a clear plan: dominate and destabilise Donald Trump.
It started with her opening power move, when she strode across the compact stage in Philadelphia to demand a handshake. This was her seizing the initiative, and a telling sign that America’s surprise presidential candidate was keen to exert control on an opponent who has a track record of dominating these kind of stages.
In the hours since this blockbuster showdown, political pundits and networks have dedicated much time to praising and analysing Harris’s approach. Her poking and her prodding of Trump. Her mocking, derisory laughter as she ribbed him with personal attacks and then watched as he lost his cool and pushed back angrily.
The scale and tone of this coverage is largely due to the fact her strategy was successful. The few instant polls we saw after the debate indicated a resounding victory for Harris. And while the history of US elections shows this does not always translate to a victory in November, it was surprising to see Harris take on Trump in this aggressive way.
But, however successful this approach was, it is ultimately surface-level stuff. It is body language and facial expressions and sharp ripostes.
Before this event, polls consistently suggested voters wanted to know more about where Harris stood on the key issues. Her campaign so far has been light, even vague, on hard policy. And while Trump is more well-established, voters are surely still keen to know what he would do in real terms if elected again.
So, did the debate tell us much about what either of them would do in office? Not particularly.
Harris did come with prepared soundbites explaining her economic proposals that she has outlined before – a $6,000 child tax credit for infants, a $50,000 tax cut for small businesses and $25,000 to help first time home buyers find a deposit. She argued that Trump’s proposed tariffs on imported goods would cause higher prices for consumers.
These are all things we have heard several times previously from the campaign.
Harris did not give an answer when quizzed on why the Biden administration, which she has served in for almost four years, has kept in place a number of tariffs introduced by Trump. Nor did she describe how she would try to tackle inflation which consistently polls as a top concern for many voters.
But Trump’s attempt to capitalise on this clear and obvious weakness for Harris (he described his rival’s economic policies as Marxist) got lost as he veered into an answer about illegal migrants, saying “bad immigration” is the worst thing that can happen to the economy.
This exchange was illustrative of the night as a whole. There was no shortage of heat in this ill-tempered debate, but both sides shone very little light on policy.
