Front Burner - Harris comes out swinging in a crucial presidential debate

Episode Date: September 11, 2024

Before tonight, U.S. presidential candidates Donald Trump and Kamala Harris had never met in real life. But they took the stage in Philadelphia, Penn., last night for their first — and possibly only — televised debate of the campaign.Keith Boag, a former longtime Washington correspondent for CBC News, breaks down the biggest moments of the debate and what it could mean for the candidates' campaigns going forward.For transcripts of Front Burner, please visit: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/frontburner/transcripts

In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization, empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. This is a CBC Podcast. Hi, I'm Jamie Poisson. So the first and very possibly the last U.S. presidential debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris took place last night. Keith Bogue is with me. Keith spent years as a correspondent for the CBC in Washington.

He is one of my favorite people to listen to talk about American politics. All right, so let's get straight to the postmortem. There is no shortage of stuff to talk about here. So Keith, Donald Trump effectively won the last debate by not having to do much at all, really. It set in motion a whole set of circumstances that resulted in this debate tonight with Kamala Harris. And just walking into the debate, what were the stakes for her? Well, I guess they're kind of incredible. So much has happened in the last couple of months to change the shape of the race. And yet, although Democrats are delighted with their last-minute change of nominee and the way that she has caught on and improved their standings in the poll, they are still not leading in the polls, and they are still not the favorites to win this race. And because she is still an undefined candidate in the race, and that she was not terribly well known by ordinary people in terms of

the details of her personality and so on and her record. She has really only had those last couple of months to try to catch up. And the defining moments have been her convention. And then, of course, tonight. This was probably the most important moment for her in terms of defining herself, and may well be the last time she gets such an opportunity. And at the same time, it was the most important opportunity for Donald Trump to define Kamala Harris. So that was really what the whole debate was about tonight. It was about Kamala Harris, because there's so much about Donald Trump we already know, and we've seen him on the political landscape for a decade now, but she's still a bit of a mystery to many people. Well, I'm dying to know, you have watched so many of these

debates, and we're going to get into some of the issues in a more granular sense in a moment, but just generally, how do you think she did? Well, I thought the whole thing was riveting. I thought it raced by. I thought there was lots of drama to it. Even from a substantive point of view, including Donald Trump, I think that it was a worthwhile debate in terms of just getting information of the candidates on where they stand. So much of these things have to do with style, a person's behavior, their warmth or lack

of, and all of that was present too, and it's very important, but it had all of those things together. And I'd also like to say, I thought for a change, I don't have a lot of complaints about the moderators of the debate. It was a very good debate. It, I think, served the public well. And I think that people who are wondering what Kamala Harris is really like have a much better sense this morning now than they did 24 hours ago. Yeah, I was having a great time. Although I will say that as soon as the debate ended, the Republican pundits were coming on talking about how they thought the moderators were completely unfair to Trump. The biggest, I think, failure for the country tonight was ABC. Yeah, it's an embarrassment. That's an embarrassment to journalism. I mean, it's on issue.

You know that it was like three against one and multiple points. In multiple points. But before we get to that substance, though, just a little bit more on the style or the strategy, right? Because Harris, it did seem clear to me, at least, that she was trying to bait Trump. She did this several times. You know, I'm thinking, for example, right off the top, she started to get into his rallies. She talked about how people were bored at his rallies. You will see during the course of his rallies, he talks about fictional characters like Hannibal Lecter. He will talk about windmills cause cancer. And what you will also notice is that people start leaving his rallies early out of exhaustion and boredom. And I will tell you the one thing. And just talk to me about how you think that strategy generally played out. Because it wasn't just the rally stuff. There were multiple examples. I think the rally stuff was probably the most obvious of it, right?

Where we have known for years how sensitive Trump is about the size of his crowds and what a great entertainer he is. And she was really giving it to him. Right. She stuck it right to him, saying essentially saying, you know, he's a little bit nutty when he talks to his rallies and inviting people to go. Right. Like I thought that was a very clever tactic. And I'm going to invite you to attend one of Donald Trump's rallies because it's a really interesting thing to watch. you to attend one of Donald Trump's rallies, because it's a really interesting thing to watch. Speaking to the audience and saying, I'm going to invite you to go to a Donald Trump rally, because then you'll get to see how kind of nutty he is and how boring he is too. And that's why people are leaving. And man, those things really get under his skin and he cannot hide it. And he

cannot resist responding. He can't bridge away from that and talk about what he should be talking about. He just, as you say, takes the bait and starts going on about his crowds. Oh, man. First, let me respond to the rallies. She said people start leaving. People don't go to her rallies. There's no reason to go. And the people that do go, she's busing them in and paying them to be there.

So she can't talk about that. People don't leave my rallies. We have the biggest rallies, the most incredible rallies in the history of politics. That's because people... I think that that showed that she has a lot of skill in playing Donald Trump. And Donald Trump just cannot help himself. He cannot get out of his own way. There was another moment where she picked a fight with him when she brought up his indictments, essentially, and then he went into this whole thing about her weaponizing the government. Vice President Harris, in your last run for president. This is the one that weaponized, not me.

She weaponized. I probably took a bullet to the head because of the things that they say about me. They talk about, you know, I think maybe another standout moment was when she talked about how like world leaders are always talking like smack about him. And he kind of really went off on that, too. Victor Orban, one of the most respected men. They call him a strong man. He's a tough person, smart. Prime Minister of Hungary. They said, why is the whole world blowing up? Three years ago, it wasn't. Why is it blowing up? He said, because you need Trump back as president. They were afraid of him. China was afraid. And I don't like to use the word afraid, but I'm just quoting him. China was afraid of him. North Korea was afraid of him.

Look at what's going on. How would you characterize Trump's performance generally? And you talked earlier about how his job was to try and define her. And how did he do there? Well, I mean, maybe he did OK for his base, but so much of it was playing to his base. And maybe he still feels secure that he can win the election with only his base. But for instance, you mentioned his court cases and the indictments against him and how he was railing against the justice system as having been politicized and so on. And there is an audience for that, but it's an audience he already has. And the question for me is really,

do you want to be spending that much time talking about the fact that you're a felon or that you have to face all of the indictments that have court cases ahead? Like, where is the upside for Donald Trump in all of that, except with his base who he already has? But the idea that he can stand there

and proudly say how much he admires Victor Orban and how much Victor Orban admires him and how the world was a better place when all his chummy dictator friends had him as the president of the United States. Again, I don't think that has broad appeal. I don't think he helps himself with that, but I don't think he can help himself when it comes to trying to control it. And then how do you think he did when it came to trying to shape the narrative around her? You know, part of me is reluctant to say because I don't want to feel as though I'm speaking for 300 million Americans or whatever adult population may have been watching that. I've learned from covering many debates in Canada and in the United States that sometimes we see more than we should in these debates because we are talking to each

other all the time and we're so familiar with the subject and we have our own way of grading it. And the public sees it very differently. So when it comes to how well did he do in defining her, I don't think he, I mean, clearly he wanted to define her as Joe Biden. That came up over and over again. I've never thought that that is a particularly persuasive thing for him to do against somebody who is so completely and obviously not Joe Biden. She is Biden. You know, she's trying to get away from Biden. I don't know the gentleman, she says.

She is Biden, the worst inflation we've ever had, a horrible economy because inflation has made it so bad. But I do think that tying her to the Biden agenda, and particularly through those kinds of things that make people ask themselves, was I really better off four years ago than I am now? And many people would answer that in the affirmative. Yeah, they do feel they were better off. I think in those ways, that was probably his most effective attack on her. And also, as a part of that, you know, in his summation at the end of it, he said, you know, you got all these plans that you want to do. You've had time to do them. Why didn't you? Yeah.

That's, I think, a very effective message as well. Hi, it's Ramit Sethi here. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization their own household income. That's not a typo. 50%. That's because money is confusing. In my new book and podcast, Money for Couples, I help you and your partner create a financial vision together. To listen to this podcast, just search for Money for Couples. I think that's a good segue to some of the specific issues that the candidates fielded questions on. So on this question of like, were you better off four years ago? That was really one of the first questions that was thrown at Harris tied to the economy, essentially. And generally, how do you think that she did on this issue, which is not a great one for her, right? You know, there's an inflation, yeah, cost of living crisis.

Yeah, it's hard to win on this issue. I think the Biden administration for a number of years has made the mistake of thinking that they could talk to the public about the economy in kind of macroeconomic wonky terms and that they would get it, that they would be able to talk about inflation coming down and people would say, oh, great, inflation's coming down. But people aren't like that. They experience inflation as the price of goods in the grocery store. And the price of goods in the grocery store is not coming down. The rate at which it's going up is coming down. Completely different thing. And what she did, I think, effectively, although I don't know whether you can ever be

completely effective on this when you're dealing with the hand that she's got, is that she at least identified with how people are experiencing the economy. And she didn't talk down to them from, in a kind of academic, desensitized way. So I was raised as a middle class kid. And I am actually the only person on this stage who has a plan that is about lifting up the middle class and working people of America. She talked about them as a person who understands what it's like not to be able to afford the things that you used to be able to afford. Yeah, on that macro level versus the fact that you just like can't pay your rent. Right. Immigration in the southern border, unsurprisingly, came up a lot, right? Donald Trump talked about it during segments where he wasn't asked about it. Ashley Babbitt was shot

by an out of control police officer that should have never, ever shot her. It's a disgrace. But we didn't do this group of people that have been treated so badly. I ask, what about all the people that are pouring into our country and killing people that she allowed to pour in? She was the border, I remember that. Did you hear anything tonight from Trump on immigration that surprised you? You know, I kind of thought he'd go after it even more than he did. I mean, you're quite right that he bridged to it on a couple of occasions, but I think he missed opportunities. And I think it's probably his most effective argument.

And he obviously almost enjoys fear-mongering about the people who are coming across the border and painting them as the most savage, violent, murderous people you could possibly imagine, who will eat your pets if you let them, right? Yeah. Yeah, I'll just come in here for some clarification for people listening. There was this moment in the debate where Trump essentially said that immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, were eating people's dogs and cats. In Springfield, they're eating the dogs, the people that came in. They're eating the cats. They're eating the pets of the people that live there.

And this is what's happening. And this is a wild, unsubstantiated claim that's been going around. And this is a wild, unsubstantiated claim that's been going around. Trump said at some point, I think that he saw it on TV. That was unspecified where, yeah, it's been bolstered online by these kind of bizarre AI images of cats and Trumps. And, you know, his sons are sharing this. And, yeah. Yeah.

So, you know, he was bringing this thing up and the debate moderator said, look, you know, this has been investigated and there is no shred of evidence that any of that is true. And he responded by saying, I saw it on TV. There have been no credible reports of specific claims of pets being harmed, injured or abused by individuals within the immigrant community. Well, I've seen people on television. Let me just say here, this is the... People on television say my dog was taken and used for food. So maybe he said that and maybe that's a good thing to say. It's almost poetic that he would say that because he's the most TV president we've ever had, right?

Like he exists in front of the TV tube or in front of the TV camera, right? He has those two roles. He's either on TV or watching TV, relatively, most of the time. those two roles. He's either on TV or watching TV, relatively most of the time. And then we get to see from his own mouth how important he thinks TV is compared to, say, fact-checking or just knowing what you're talking about. He believed it was true because he saw it on TV. Yeah. It was really, I think, one of the most bizarre moments or kind of most unhinged moments, it felt like, in the debate. Harris pushed back on him on immigration with a line that she's used, you know, Biden used it. They accuse him of killing this bipartisan bill to address the border. And do you think that was

enough from her tonight to quell people's concerns around this? Well, he doesn't have a good answer to that because it's true. They did have a bipartisan agreement. It was not an agreement Democrats would have supported in other contexts, but they supported it because they were desperate to try to get the issue off the table. And so they gave away a lot more than they would be accustomed to. Virtually nothing that Democrats would want in another context was available to them in that bipartisan bill. And yet, even though it was supported by Republicans, Trump worked hard, quickly, and effectively to make sure it did not pass. And I think he clearly exposed himself as putting his own political interests

ahead of that issue. But whether you can say that often enough and clearly enough to persuade people that he can't be trusted on this issue if it doesn't serve his self-interest, I don't know. But it's a not bad response to and for Trump is the issue of abortion. And that, of course, came up during the debate. It was a good chunk of the night. And what do you make of Kamala's performance on this question? You know, uh, this is a strong issue for her. And so how do you think that she did there? It was the moment and it was, you know,

it was fairly early in the debate. It was after the economic questions, they got straight to that. And it was the moment that I saw her shift into a more comfortable gear for her, where she knows the substance of the issue so well, she doesn't have to worry about that. But it was an opportunity for her to demonstrate great compassion across a range of complex issues and speak for how women feel when facing a variety of different health care challenges like that. One does not have to abandon their faith or deeply held beliefs to agree. The government and Donald Trump certainly should not be telling a woman what to do with her body. I have talked with women around...

And I think it showed, as I say, her compassion and her comfort with the issue. And I think a really strong ability to talk to people from the heart. And in the course of that debate, Trump keeps reverting to telling people what they think. Every legal scholar, every Democrat, every Republican, liberal, conservative, they all wanted this issue to be brought back to the states where the people could vote. And that's what happened. Now, Ohio? And everybody's supposedly happy. I mean, that's just obviously not true. It's unclear to me why he would say such a thing and keep repeating such a thing, other than, I mean, the often

demonstrated fact that he can't ever say that he was wrong about anything, right? So, he has to portray himself as being in control of this issue, that he appointed the Supreme Court to do this and overturn Roe v. Wade, and overturning Roe v. Wade was a good thing. The majority of women in America don't agree with him, and he's telling them, yeah, actually, you do agree with me. I mean, I think that's mansplaining. You know, I mean, he cannot win on this issue at all. He cannot persuade people. He's never been consistent on his own view because he hasn't really thought about the issue. And that's been evident since he first entered politics and started answering questions almost nonsensically

about abortion. He hasn't thought about it, and he should be smart enough to keep his mouth shut until he has had time to think about it more seriously, which I don't think is a day that will ever come. Well, even during the debate, she pressed him on whether he would veto a national abortion ban. He just, he won't, he basically wouldn't answer it. But if I could just get a yes or no, because you're running me, J.D. Vance has said that you would veto if you did come to your desk. Well, I didn't discuss it with J.D. in all fairness, J.D. And I don't mind if he has a certain view, but I think he was speaking for me, but I really didn't. Look, we don't have to discuss it because she'd never be able to get it just like she couldn't get student loans.

They couldn't get student loans. I mean, you got to think that. Well, what he's afraid of is like he has the support of the evangelicals and the Christians who all are, you know, varying degrees of adding abortion, some quite extreme. Yeah. And he doesn't want to be the guy up there who's saying that, yeah, he would sign it and keep them happy and alienate a bunch of other people, or that he would veto it and lose them and gain probably nothing. I mean, it's just never been a good issue for him. He doesn't know how to handle it. And the more he talks about it, the worse he makes it.

Mm-hmm. I think this was probably her strongest portion of the night. I mean, to me at least, just as a journalist watching it. There was another notable amount of time in the debate devoted to the results of the 2020 election, January 6th, the riot at the Capitol, and whether Trump still thinks he won in 2020. And just what stood out to you the most from those exchanges? I think it was when Kamala Harris said he's having difficulty processing it. Donald Trump was fired by 81 million people. So let's be clear about that. And clearly, he is having a very difficult time processing that. So let's be clear about that. And clearly he is having a very difficult time processing that.

I mean, talk about an understatement, right? He incited a riot against the Capitol because he was having difficulty processing the results of the election. But that's what so many people feel, right? That this is a real problem for Donald Trump. That he cannot accept defeat. He cannot process it properly. And it leads to all kinds of unpredictable but quite dire consequences. And I think she did that kind of neatly, almost lightly. But it's a very serious thing that he can't accept the results of the last election.

There were several foreign policy questions. Gaza, Ukraine, Afghanistan specifically came up. How would you sum up the exchanges and answers from Harris and Trump there? You know, foreign policy issues are almost by definition, nightmarishly complex. Donald Trump has simple answers to them, which can sound appealing or persuasive or convincing to the right audience. I'll speak to one, I'll speak to the other, I'll get them together. That war would have never happened.

And in fact, when I saw Putin after I left... Yeah, he's like, I would have just called up Putin and that war would just be over. It would just be over. Like, I'd call up Hamas and the war. I mean, it's completely nonsensical. Right. But if you want to treat those questions seriously, it's really a difficult challenge to explain imposition in simple terms in a limited amount of time when those issues have developed over, in some cases, decades, in some cases longer, are extremely complex.

And most unfortunately, there are probably no good answers, no completely satisfactory answers. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having the violence that we are seeing. So you're given a choice. You can believe easy kind of nonsensical solutions of one candidate, and that can help you get to yourself through the night or whatever it takes. And that can help you get to yourself through the night or whatever it takes. But the truthful answer from the other candidate is not very nourishing, satisfying. Because it's just not. Because the problems are complex.

Because the answers aren't easy and none of them can be had without sacrifice. Keith, any other standout moments you think are worth us discussing here? You know, I think there were a lot of standout moments in body language. I heard somebody on television say that, you know, you could get a lot of information out of this debate by turning the volume left. And that comment really meant that you would see somebody quite clearly comfortable, serious, able to smile, laugh, look stern. I'm talking about Kamala Harris. And then somebody who looks angry and put upon and like he'd rather be anywhere else. And I think if these are the broad kinds of feelings that people come away with, I think that's a good thing for Harris. Whether it makes any difference at all in the end, is that our last question? Is that where we're headed here?

Yeah, well, let me go straight to it, because there are 56 days left in this election, and what kind of sticking power do you think what happened tonight could have in November, especially if this is the only time that the pair of them will face off. So I don't know whether it can do Kamala Harris any good. I think it's a great relief, having gone through the Biden debate, that she clearly didn't do herself harm. But whether it matters even in a couple of weeks, I mean, we can't know that. But to the extent it really was about Kamala Harris defining herself, I think anybody who watched this tonight will know more about Kamala Harris, a lot more about Kamala Harris

tomorrow than they did yesterday. And I think what they saw was someone who's comfortable with the issues, who speaks very, very clearly in moving from complex issue to complex issue, or thought to thought to thought, and who can do so with compassion, understanding, a touch of anger, but not too much, a touch of humor, but not too much, but a lot of humanity. Well, I do want to note that when the polls start coming out in the next couple of days, we might not even know if it was the debate or if it was the fact that a bit of breaking news here, Taylor Swift just endorsed Kamala on her Instagram account with a picture of

her and a cat. So who's to say? I'm only half joking about that. Anyways, Keith, this was great. It was a lot of fun, a really fun debate. And then this was a really fun conversation. So thank you so much. Thank you so much. Thank you for inviting me. All right, that is all for today. I'm Jamie Poisson. Thanks so much for listening. We'll talk to you tomorrow.