Who Won the Presidential Debate, Trump or Harris? Newsweek Writers’ Verdicts

Donald Trump and Kamala Harris faced each other for the first time in Tuesday night’s crucial presidential debate, with less than two months to go before America decides who will become the next President. The other presidential debate between Trump and Joe Biden on June 27 led to the end of the latter’s reelection campaign. With such high stakes—and no current plans for a second Trump-Harris debate—our writers declare who won and why. You can have your say with our poll—and leave your own verdict below.
My kingdom for two presidential candidates who can competently string sentences together about policy. And forget about actually answering questions. But my bipartisan complaints aside, from the very first question, Trump showed how he was going to lose this debate, when he missed the most obvious, clean hit imaginable. Harris was asked if Americans are better off than they were four years ago, and she pointedly did not answer the question. Trump did not call her on it. Instead, he got caught up in his own rambling grievances and scattershot passions. Such was the pattern throughout the evening, as Kamala outperformed expectations and successfully baited Trump into arguing on inhospitable ground, whether it was abortion, his rallies, or January 6. For his part, he had only slight impact on her record of liberalism, her inability to be a change candidate, and such advantageous areas for him as immigration and the economy. Some will complain about the moderators. That’s fair. There’s no excuse for moderators doing one-sided or incorrect fact-checking if they’re going to do that live. But this was all predictable and could easily have been prepared for. It was Trump’s job to make her answer for her record knowing this and he didn’t.
Mary Katharine Ham is a journalist and author
Trump won the debate—not just against shrill and inauthentic Kamala Harris, but against biased ABC moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis, who shored up Harris’ weak performance and helped her evade substantive policy discussion and accountability for the many failings of the Biden administration. Despite having three opponents rather than one, Trump was for the most part cogent and sincere, parried Harris’s clichéd attacks effectively, and—especially in his closing speech—communicated his message directly to the American people through a dense fog of obfuscation. Visually, Harris wasted her time with the pursed lips and smug sneer of the midlevel HR manager she would have been had it not been for Willie Brown.
Paul du Quenoy is President of the Palm Beach Freedom Institute
If your tennis opponent double-faults, you earn a point by doing nothing. And Vice President Kamala Harris, who turned in an adequate performance, will emerge the winner from tonight’s debate because of her opponent’s missteps. Aside from displaying genuine passion in the segment on abortion, she relied on self-evidently canned lines. For the most part, she was content to let former President Donald Trump indulge some of his worst tendencies, from defending his actions on Jan. 6, citing dubious online memes, and relitigating the 2020 election. As a result, Trump was the main character, but couldn’t effectively use the spotlight to give undecided voters new reason to give him another chance. Tonight’s game goes to Ms. Harris—but the match is still too close to call.
Patrick T. Brown is a Fellow at The Ethics and Public Policy Center
There is now no doubt that Vice President Kamala Harris is the only major candidate in this year’s race who lives in a fact-based reality. From claiming that illegal immigrants are eating Americans’ pets to suggesting that Democrats support post-birth abortions (which is murder), millions of viewers tonight were on the receiving end of an endless barrage of lies from former President Donald Trump. If the stakes weren’t so high, it would have been humorous; instead, it was alarming to see a candidate so ill-equipped to assume the highest office in the land on the national stage. Win for Harris.
Arick Wierson is a six-time Emmy award-winning television producer
Policy differences are healthy for democracy, and tonight’s debate featured some important disagreements on issues related to abortion, immigration, the economy, foreign policy and more. But Trump’s continuing refusal to accept the results of the 2020 elections, sowing distrust in the integrity of our nation’s elections system, is by far the most dangerous disagreement. We live in a divided and highly polarized nation, and swing voters in particular are seeking leaders who will unify and not further divide us. As long as Trump refuses to respect the integrity of our nation’s institutions, it will be hard for undecided voters to put him in charge of those very same institutions.
Udi Ofer is Professor of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University
The keyword about Election 2024 is vibes. How do the American people feel about former President Donald J. Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris? Coming out of the last presidential debate, it was clear that the vibes were going in the direction of President Trump; President Biden was exposed to be a deeply confused, elderly man. Few remember what was said, but most Americans, even his most ardent supporters, felt uncomfortable about his basic competency. That debate performance led to internal upheaval among Democrats that led to Vice President Harris moving to the top of the ticket. I watched the second debate next to my ten-year-old daughter and my nine-year-old son, who are more knowledgeable about foreign and domestic policy than most adult American voters. That’s not me tooting my kids’ horns, that’s me saying most Americans aren’t paying that close attention; which is what makes this a vibes election. The vibes from last night, according to my daughter, “She seems nice, like she’s speaking from the heart. She’s convincing; if I wasn’t sure who I was going to vote for, I would probably go for her.” After the first debate, the vibes flowed in President Trump’s direction because it felt like a sequel of Weekend at Bernie’s. Up against an opponent who wasn’t near catatonic, President Trump wasn’t so lucky this time around.
Bethany Mandel is co-author of Stolen Youth
If memory serves, it was either Shakespeare or Walter Sobchak who said, “Mark it zero.” Tonight’s “debate” was a massive nationwide zero—a true battle of attrition, with Harris failing to land even a glancing blow against the Teflon Don. I see two winners tonight: Trump, as Harris failed to show she could in any meaningful way get under his skin; and all of us, since I predict the fates and some wise political advisors will mercifully spare us from a follow-up debate. But the ultimate big winner of the evening is the Harris campaign. That Taylor Swift—as perfectly and eloquently as anyone has ever done—chose to so powerfully endorse the Harris/Walz tickets minutes after the debate ended truly overrides anything that happened or didn’t happen in the debate itself.
Aron Solomon is a legal analyst
Vice President Kamala Harris was far more disciplined in the debate, but lacking in substance. Former President Donald Trump was pugilistic but too defensive and distracted. Both candidates gave enough red meat to please their supporters but neither gave a clear vision for the future. Harris escaped scrutiny for her numerous changes of policy positions and too often said a lot of nothing. Trump was too focused on defending himself instead of prosecuting Harris’s record or making an effective case for himself. Even though both candidates attempted to, neither scored a knockout punch against the other. The race is likely to remain a nail biter until the end. Neither candidate was a clear winner, but voters who wanted a more substantive conversation were the losers.
Darvio Morrow is CEO of the FCB Radio Network
She won. Given the low expectations, even to beat him by a few points was a huge victory, but she beat him by more than that. Swing voters wanted to see two things: that he could be a sober steady hand and that she was not a far-left lightweight. He was not steady, and she was not a lefty. The bloom is off the rose with Trump. In 2016, we could imagine that just maybe he offered something unique. Now we know better. Circa 2024, “I was robbed,” is not the basis for a movement. He fell for every taunt, shoehorned non-responsive answers one too many times, couldn’t drive a stake even at the most obvious moments. Petty, petulant, defensive, and humorless. She had her best night ever.
Noam Dworman is the owner of the Comedy Cellar
Tonight was all about the small number of voters who are undecided and will decide who wins in November, not either party’s base. For that group, Trump had to win over people who don’t like him while Harris had to win over people who wanted to hear more about her. For Harris, mission accomplished. She effectively laid out her vision for the country and contrasted it with Trump’s. While Trump showed the same erratic, incoherent and brute behavior that repels undecided voters. Going into tonight Harris had the most to gain and lose. And she came out with a big win.
Doug Gordon is a Democratic strategist and co-founder of UpShift Strategies
Harris wasn’t perfect, but she certainly won. The Vice President came off as caring and sincere, while Trump appeared rambling, incoherent at times, and flustered. In addition to his usual endless streams of lies about pipelines and abortion, he made various inane (or possibly insane) comments, claiming migrants are eating pets, praising dictator Viktor Orban, and trying to rewrite what happened on January 6. Harris had some clever barbs in response, calling Trump a “disgrace,” referring to “Trump abortion bans,” and saying he was “fired by 81 million Americans,” which may have been the best line of the night.
Ross Rosenfeld is a former teacher, writer, and college adviser
I would ordinarily reject the clichéd premise that any candidate can “win” one of these tedious debates, but here I’ll make a rare exception, because any candidate who would earnestly tout the endorsement of Dick Cheney has to be declared the automatic loser. In this sense, Kamala Harris resoundingly lost tonight’s debate. I audibly guffawed in the Philadelphia convention hall when she name-dropped Dick, which provoked some bewildered looks from fellow journalists, but if I’m the only one who had a violent reaction to that moment, so be it. Donald Trump was a secondary loser with his “pro-Israel” hysterics, not to mention his strange claim that Vladimir Putin has killed “millions” in Ukraine, but Kamala sadly takes the ignominious cake.
Michael Tracey is an independent reporter
Vice President Kamala Harris won the debate by sounding articulate (and light years better than President Joe Biden) though it was merely rehearsed talking points and even though she dodged most questions about her record, stuck to platitudes and avoided substance, while spewing smears and lies about her opponent. Trump lost because he was typically unfocused and allowed himself to be baited at times in a way that diverted him from honing in on her failed record. But the real loser was ABC, whose narrators were so openly biased for Harris and against Trump to the point where it seemed as if they were debating him. A big loss for mainstream legacy corporate media whose credibility is already shot.
Jonathan Tobin is Editor in chief, JNS.org
On the issue of foreign policy specifically, the result was a draw. Kamala Harris didn’t provide any specifics on how she would bring Israel and Hamas toward a ceasefire, simply repeating that a ceasefire needed to happen. It was a totally insufficient tired answer. She vowed continued U.S. support for the Ukrainians, seemingly without end, and regurgitated her infatuation with NATO. Donald Trump wasn’t much better, asserting Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack and the Russian invasion of Ukraine wouldn’t have occurred if he were still sitting in the White House and proclaiming—again—that he would settle the war in Ukraine through a negotiation in short-order. How? He didn’t say. There was a clear loser, however: the millions of Americans watching, wondering who would be a better commander-in-chief.
Daniel R. DePetris is a Fellow at Defense Priorities