The choice has now been laid out, and it is stark. Tuesday’s presidential debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump likely won’t be among history’s most remembered, but it delivered what we needed in 2024, showcasing the very real differences between the two candidates.
And yet, I’m left to wonder whether it was enough to dramatically change the race. After nearly a decade of this same Trump in our politics, it’s difficult to have real confidence that an objectively poor performance will cost him the White House. As disorienting as his comments can be, it feels exactly like what we’ve seen from him for years.
After nearly a decade of this same Trump in our politics, it’s difficult to have real confidence that an objectively poor performance will cost him the White House.
The question remains: How many voters are willing to overlook his obvious flaws and bizarre rhetoric out of gauzy nostalgia for pre-pandemic days or a frustration with the current administration’s handling of the economy?
In style and substance, Harris looked the part of a president, the awkwardness of her early stumbles on the national stage gone. She spoke to her plans but more so to the values, principles and priorities that motivate her. She was firm and forward-looking. Harris was speaking directly to the American people.
Trump, by contrast, reprised his familiar role as America’s dark and self-obsessed loudmouth. He did little to appeal to swing voters, diving immediately into conservative culture issues and conspiracy theories. The Trump campaign had hoped to present Harris as a lightweight and a radical. But once again it was undermined by its candidate. The former president leveled many attacks, to be sure, but he got so lost in his own rambles that Harris was rarely put on the defensive.
At times she was able to toy with him, tossing out bait on topics like crowd sizes, Trump’s criminal conviction and his role on Jan. 6. He eagerly took it each time, wasting precious time on self-indulgent rants that serve only to highlight his narcissism. Perhaps the worst moment for the former president was an extended argument that he, in fact, did not lose the 2020 election. None of this does him any good with the undecided voters who will determine this election. Harris, meanwhile, understood the assignment. She pressed her advantage on issues like abortion while presenting herself as a mainstream Democrat, saying she would be tough on illegal border crossers, promoting the need for a mighty military force and even announcing herself as a gun owner. She had no knockout blows, but in contrast to the brooding, unfocused performance of her opponent she was the clear better candidate onstage. Tuesday’s debate was much bigger than the differences in their policy proposals. It was a contrast in the character, ideals and seriousness that we should expect from a president. It’s confounding that the race is so close, making this debate supposedly so crucial, because the choice should not be hard. There is a serious candidate working to earn your vote, running in the traditions of American democracy and offering a vision for moving America forward. And there is another who remains deeply unstable and wants to scare people into going backward.
Brendan Buck
Brendan Buck is an NBC News and MSNBC political analyst. He was previously counselor to former House Speaker Paul Ryan and press secretary to former House Speaker John Boehner. 
