On Tuesday night, Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump debated for the first – and likely only – time ahead of the election. It was a raucous back and forth that covered a lot of ground without going too deep on any one topic.
I had hoped to focus this blog on policy, highlighting the differences between the candidates’ tax plans raised in the debate and noting what key topics were not covered. But those who watched the debate know I must first touch on each candidate’s performance before moving to policy, or lack thereof on tax, and prognostication.
The Debate Harris Wanted
There is widespread agreement spanning the ideological spectrum that Harris won the debate, with the snap-polls and prediction markets reflecting this belief as well.
The contrasts in the style and temperament of the candidates, rather than policy differences, are likely what viewers will remember from this debate. Harris was effective in controlling the conversation, focusing the discussion on an issue when it was a political strength and seeking to divert the debate to another topic when it wasn’t. She was far better at this than Trump, who could not help himself from taking the bait she laid and divulging into a personal grievance or relitigating past events to his detriment.
Trump’s most effective line of attack probably came in his closing statement asking Harris why she hasn’t done anything she proposed on stage in the last three and a half years. That is a critique that could resonate with undecided voters and remind them that Harris is a central part of an unpopular Biden Administration. Yet, it was not enough to make up for an overwhelming lack of discipline throughout the debate that he did not display, at least to this extent, in the June debate with Biden.
Approach to Tax Unclear
Broadly speaking, there was not much focus on policy in this debate. However, Harris did point to the policies she proposed and did her best Elizabeth Warren – “I have a plan for that” – to address the challenges facing voters raised by the moderators.
Much of Harris’s policy focus centered on her economic proposal to lower the costs of key goods, while Trump’s economic policy discussion centered on vague promises, such as further lowering taxes and creating a good economy. What neither candidate laid out at the debate, or in policy proposals ahead of it, is a clear plan for how they would approach addressing the expiring provisions in the 2017 tax bill and how they would pay for it.
Addressing the expiring tax provisions will be a central focus in Washington next year and a key legislative initiative either candidate will need to oversee as president to prevent all taxpayers from facing a tax hike. Yet, you wouldn’t have gleaned that from watching Tuesday’s debate.
Congress will be in the driver’s seat for setting the contours of tax reform and determining how to pay for it regardless of who wins. However, it is somewhat unique that lawmakers are already beginning this work devoid of much guidance from whoever will be in the White House as neither candidate has yet to release a fulsome tax agenda or plant a clear flag in the ground for how they would like to see tax reform transpire. This dynamic reinforces the importance of engaging with lawmakers now and taking advantage of every opportunity to provide input on tax reform.
Will the Debate Matter?
The candidates came into the debate deadlocked in a true tossup race. If anything, Harris was trending slightly in the wrong direction, with some recent poor poll numbers leading prediction models to give Trump an advantage in November. Despite her strong performance throughout, there was not one knockout punch or signature moment that could dominate the airwaves like we had when President Biden stumbled early in the June debate.
There are also over 50 days between now and election day, which is an eternity in politics. The Harris campaign has called for a second debate, but it is unclear if one will occur. Both sides will need to believe they have something to gain, and it could prove very difficult for the campaigns to agree on a location and rules. So, this debate and seeing the candidates together may be a distant memory by election day.
It is an open question how much debates still matter to a hyper-partisan and overstimulated electorate. For some historical context, the media and the snap polls consistently deemed Clinton the winner of the 2016 debates. Yet, we all know what happened on election day.
What was clear from the debate, however, is that neither candidate has a clear or realistic plan at this point for addressing the 2017 tax bill and paying for it.