Harris Trump debate analysis: What are the key takeaways? | DW News

US Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump have squared off in their only planned debate of this year's presidential campaign. The two candidates clashed on various issues including the economy, race and immigration. Both accused the other of lying - with Harris questioning Trump's fitness for office. What stood out most on this debate?

#presidentialdebate2024 #uselections #uselections2024

Follow DW on social media:

[Fenris_]

Putin: "They eat pet food in Europe"
Trump: "They eat cats and dogs in Springfield"

[daggerthree]

Flimsy commentary. Winning a debate is about addressing the undecided. On that front, Harris clearly did a far better job.

[gimmeagig]

This analysis is not worthy of DW. These woman you brought in are clueless. Kamala had Trump on the ropes the whole time.

[TheCrimsonSge]

They criticise the debate for being "shallow" but they only got 2 minutes on each broad topic while simultaneously fending off personal attacks. How is it possible to lay out a substantial policy platform in that time?

[RickDiggityTick]

After the 7th time he randomly brought up immigration you can see Kamala almost laugh

[johnmuller]

Aya Ibrahim is sane-washing Trump here. Putting words in his mouth, trying to make him sound not as insane as he did in that debate.

[bertmbangert]

Did Aya really watch the same debate I did? I get better analysis from my cat.

[dinnerwaltz]

Kamala was exactly like a prosecutor questioning a criminal before he's taken into custody.

[Samos]

If she thinks Trump was presidential, she's not a very observant reporter.

[samanthaw]

Not a great analysis of the debate, sorry.

[joshreichardt]

They had 2 minutes to lay out policy, and Kamala actually produced some policy points. Trump, on the other hand, lied 34 times, and DW didn't even mention that. Yes, it was light on policy, but in context, this debate was more about who could appear more presidential. DW is drawing a false equivalency between the two candidates when it is clear Harris won, and Trump was unhinged. This commentary is subpar—do better DW!

[-.]

Trump tilted. Kamala remained calm. Easy win to Kamala. This expert isn’t particularly impressive in my opinion.

[VeritasOphanious]

Trump was a babbling clown 🤡 but anything can happen from now to November

[gigistoner]

What are you talking about? Why are you saying it was even or both sides didn't get into policy. Kamala stated what she planned to do. Were you distracted by trump's insanity and have to be "fair" and say it was even?

[SJP]

She thinks the Washington post is liberal? Oh good lord!

[RaguRaghupathi]

Where does the reporter from the US live? 2 minutes are not enough for details.

[gregjames]

Kamala said nothing, but she said it nicely. She gave no details. And at times she ignored the question.

[speculawyer]

She baited him and Trump made a fool of himself.

[JennySparks]

Kamala won this debate in every single way. This DW pundit is obviously conservative. “Both sides weee thin on the issues, Neither won the debate, Both were presidential” - Trump lied and gave absolutely no details, while Kamala gave details and vision. Unsubbing from DW

[stephennewton]

This is such a rambling report by your correspondent. Not able to answer simple questions in a clear and concise way if answers were attempted.

Must do better.