US Presidential Election 2024. Kamala Harris – Donald Trump Debate. What Will Be Important? What to Look For?

Less than three months after the historic debate Joe Biden and Donald Trump in Atlanta – the first in history that effectively ended the campaign of one of the candidates – another potentially decisive duel will take place in Philadelphia on Tuesday. In the event of a “statistical tie” in polls the outcome of the election can be determined by several thousand voters in one state.

However, debates have not always had such a decisive influence, although they have irrevocably changed the nature of election campaigns. The history of televised duels between presidential candidates dates back to September 26, 1960, when the then vice president USA Richard Nixon and Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kennedy.

The debate was watched live by 70 million Americans, and most viewers polled afterwards believed the young, camera-savvy Kennedy had a clear win over the sweaty Republican, who was irritated by a knee injury.

And although polls suggested that Nixon fared better among radio listeners, Kennedy's ratings soared, allowing him to outperform his rival both in the polls and, a few weeks later, in the election.

READ ALSO: Former military voices on presidential elections

More than half a century has passed since that television duel, and today debates are an integral part of election campaigns – they are preceded by weeks of preparations by entire teams of image specialists, and then each team moves on to the “spin”, i.e. convincing that their candidate has won.

Social media adds a whole new dimension to the competition by helping to generate support that translates into both votes and campaign donations.

As Keith Nahigian, a veteran of Republican election campaigns who has helped prepare for the debates of six presidential candidates (including John McCain in 2008), says, the debate is not so much about showing good substantive preparation or good arguments as about making a good impression and staying in the voters' memory.

– Of course, part of the preparation is to improve your knowledge of individual issues, but a common mistake among candidates is to approach them as a test where you have to give the correct answers. This approach is doomed to failure from the start. The goal should be to show yourself to voters, to tell them what you intend to do and how you intend to do it – says the activist.

– At least as important as the words you say are how you say them and how you present yourself on stage – he adds.

As he points out, especially in the age of social media, individual moments and blunders, which are often the most memorable for voters, can have a disproportionately great significance.

As he recalls, one such seemingly insignificant moment occurred during George Bush Sr.'s debate with Bill Clinton and independent candidate Ross Perot in 1992. After a voter asked him about the economic hardships, Bush looked at his watch impatiently, and at another point expressed surprise. the price of milk.

– The impression was terrible, he came across as someone who was out of touch with everyday reality. And that was back in the era of television. Now, such moments instantly turn into viral clips and memes – says Nahigian.

Despite the attention paid to debates, political science research generally does not confirm the significance of verbal duels in front of cameras. A study by researchers from Harvard and the University of California at Berkeley, cited in Scientific American and based on interviews with voters before and after 56 debates in 31 election campaigns in seven countries, suggests that the debates did not help undecided voters make up their minds, and did not persuade decided voters to switch candidates.

American political scientists Robert Erikson and Christopher Wlezien, who took into account only American debates up to 2012 in their study, reached similar conclusions.

Dr. Nicholas Higgins, a political scientist and former campaign activist at North Greenville University in South Carolina, agrees with that assessment — to a point.

“Certainly, especially in today's hyperpolarized era, debates are not designed to convince voters, because most voters will judge the duel by their pre-existing sympathies anyway. From the candidate's perspective, you're playing not to lose,” Higgins says.

– However, debates are important for generating enthusiasm among the electorate, and enthusiasm translates into turnout, and this is primarily how elections are won today – he emphasizes.

READ ALSO: Donald Trump or Kamala Harris? Latest Poll

David Greenberg, a media expert and historian from Rutgers University in New Jersey, shares a similar opinion. He notes that although debates have little power to convince voters, in this year's extremely close presidential race, when the result can be decided by differences of thousands of votes, even small fluctuations matter.

– If a candidate has a reputation for being unbalanced, a good and balanced performance during a debate can calm voters' fears, he points out. He adds that for voters who are already convinced, debates are a way to engage and become more attached to the candidate. – In these cases, it's not about persuasion, but about emotional involvement, he emphasizes.

But according to Nahigian — who predicted in a conversation before the June debate that it would kill Biden — Tuesday's clash will be absolutely crucial because of the unique circumstances. One of them is Harris' record-breakingly short campaign.

Voters in the US typically have more than a year to get to know the candidates, and a New York Times poll released on Sunday showed that nearly one in three voters still feels they don't know enough about the Democratic candidate.

“Harris has not had time to build a lasting relationship with voters; I think if you showed her photo to random passers-by on the street, they wouldn't necessarily be able to identify her,” the activist said.

In his opinion, this works to her disadvantage, because historical data has shown that undecided voters usually end up voting for the opposition candidate by a ratio of 3 to 1. In a situation where in polls – both national and those conducted in key states – the differences between the candidates are within the margin of statistical error, this could be a decisive factor.

“It all comes down to the undecided voters: When it comes to Harris, she needs to provide clear answers about where she stands on the most important issues: the economy, immigration and fracking,” Nahigian said.

This last issue – about the ecologically controversial method of extracting gas and oil from shale – is one of the most important topics in Pennsylvania, the state where the debate will take place.

Almost half a million jobs depend on the shale industry. Pennsylvania, meanwhile, is by far the most important state in the current election, where the fate of the entire election could be decided.

It is also the state where the polls are the most even: in an average of polls calculated by The New York Times, the candidates have equal levels of support. As recently as 2020, Harris supported a ban on fracking, and although she later changed her mind, her position may be unclear to many voters.

According to Nahigian, the main challenge for Trump is his onstage demeanor. The Republican activist predicts that Harris will try to “get under Trump's skin” and provoke him into “unpresidential” behavior or statements.

– She has to come across as strong, smart and clear, and if she gets under his skin, she will have an advantage. Trump will only need to stick to his message and not do anything outrageous to win – he analyzes.