Donald Trump entered the debate riding high on recent poll numbers. After weeks of euphoria and surging optimism in the Democratic camp, surveys indicated a weakening in Harris' position.
To leverage and further strengthen this trend, the former president was expected to maintain a statesmanlike, focused, and measured approach during the televised debate. This strategy aimed to put his opponent on the defensive regarding a range of problematic issues for her and the administration, such as the rising cost of living and illegal immigration across the Mexican border.
However, in a surprising turn, it was Trump who found himself unprepared for Harris' fierce attack on his past conduct, as well as his policies on a wide array of economic, social, strategic, and values-based issues. The onslaught quickly unsettled him, eliciting extreme, unfounded, and grossly exaggerated responses. The impression was that the Republican candidate easily fell into every trap set by his rival - for instance, around the seemingly trivial issue of attendance numbers at his campaign rallies, which touched a particularly sensitive nerve for him.
As a result, the former president gradually lost his focus, and his speech became jumpy and angry, jumping from topic to topic and slipping into baseless conspiracy theories (for example, his claim that illegal immigrants killed pets in Springfield, Ohio, and ate the meat).
Moreover, instead of specifically and thoroughly attacking Harris for the failure of her initiative to advance a long-term solution to the illegal immigration problem, the former president chose to repeatedly return to the unfounded argument that millions of criminals had infiltrated the US from Central America due to her fault, posing a direct threat to the personal security of US citizens and their way of life.
Thus, the debate dynamics took on an unexpected character: Harris became the initiator and accuser, while Trump was forced to defend himself and squirm in his answers (with Harris' mocking body language adding another layer to his growing frustration).
However, despite this weak performance, it's still too early to write off the Republican candidate's chances of returning victorious to the White House. On the contrary: his support base, especially among blue-collar workers, is unlikely to shrink one iota even after the debate. This base is founded on deep loyalty and emotional identification with Trump, who continues to be seen in their eyes as a fearless fighter against the elites and the Washington establishment.
Nevertheless, his conduct in the debate could harm the extent of support for him among undecided voters and independents (especially in affluent suburbs). In the close race ahead of us, even a minimal leakage of votes to the Democratic camp could tip the scales against him. Moreover, his harsh and factually baseless attack on the allegedly criminal nature of illegal immigration from Mexico could damage his standing among voters of Latin American origin.
To these, one must add possible damage to his electoral status as a result of Harris' spotlight on her opponent's positions on the abortion issue.
The coming weeks will prove whether the Philadelphia showdown was the tiebreaker in the entire campaign or nothing more than a passing episode.
