According to some Alabama State University faculty and staff members, Vice President Kamala Harris emerged as the stronger contender in the recent presidential debate that featured Harris and former President Donald Trump on Sept. 10.
Professors from a range of academic disciplines weighed in on Harris’ poise, content delivery and her ability to connect with voters, contrasting her approach to Trump’s more defensive stance throughout the debate.
Robert White, J.D., an assistant professor in the Department of languages and literature, pointed out that Harris had a more fluid performance compared to Trump, who appeared to struggle to maintain the upper hand.
“Her task was to allow America to become more familiarized with her because a lot of people said they didn’t know who she was,” White said. “They didn’t know what she was about. They never really followed her. So this is kind of like a coming out party for her. President Trump, on the other hand seemed to be on the defensive a lot, and he avoided, in my opinion, taking responsibility for a lot of things that happened. That caused him to be trudging uphill, you know, for most of the debate.”
White also addressed how the debate may influence undecided voters.
“The positives and negatives of being an incumbent is that you have to try to please people who were not on your side the first time while maintaining the people who were on your side,” he said. “A challenger can be more concise in what they believe in. I would say that most of the undecided people will probably go with the challenger in most situations.”
White added that the debate gave voters a chance to assess the candidates’ character, not just their policies.
“You learn a lot from that. You learn personality, character, habits, wit, and spontaneity. All of those things really intrigue people,” he said. “So sometimes, you know, people don’t really care about the issues. They want to know the person.”
White also reflected on the more humorous moments, particularly Trump’s reference to “dog and cat eating” when discussing illegal immigration.
“I think that was more comical than anything else,” White said. He noted that the facial expressions of both candidates added to the entertainment value of the debate, saying, “You could have muted the conversation and just went off the facial expressions alone because they were hilarious.”
Alecia Hoffman, Ph.D., associate professor of political science, shared similar praise for Harris’ performance.
“Looking at the poise that was actually exhibited by Vice President Kamala Harris and also her ability to tackle the complex questions, I would say that she was the top contender and performed very well on the debate stage Tuesday night,” Hoffman said.
She highlighted Harris’ ability to galvanize supporters, pointing to the immediate impact seen in fundraising efforts and endorsements.
“We saw that the fundraising went up for that night,” Hoffman explained. “There was $47 million raised for the Harris campaign just after that debate.”
Additionally, she noted the significance of an endorsement from pop icon Taylor Swift.
“The ability of Taylor Swift to actually galvanize a group of folks, the Swifties, to actually move the needle for Kamala Harris, I think is momentous,” she said.
Hoffman continued.
“It was a standout moment because it was a historic moment. We saw someone poised, who knew the issues, who knew how to tackle the questions that were coming forth, and helped us to see and understand that this is going to be a tight race.”
Carlos Morrison, Ph.D., professor in the department of Communications evaluated the debate from both content and delivery perspectives, emphasizing Harris’ attorney-like approach.
“I think on the content side, in terms of just addressing the issues and platform and responding appropriately to Trump and to the moderators, she did a very good job.” Morrison said. He noted that Trump’s delivery felt weaker, highlighting the fact that he often deflected questions, particularly when asked about the events of January 6th. “President Trump did a lot of deflecting, not answering the question. So, yes, I give thumbs up to the VP in terms of content.”
Morrison elaborated on Trump’s demeanor, suggesting that his usual tactic of name-calling was absent, which made his arguments seem less effective. “Anytime you name-call, it means that you can’t handle the person’s argument,” Morrison said. He also praised Harris’s use of “paralinguistic cues” such as tone, pitch and volume, noting that she exhibited the traits of a prosecuting attorney in her handling of Trump.
Looking forward, Morrison emphasized the lasting impact of the debate, citing the theory of primacy and recency in voter behavior.
“People remember the very last thing that you said,” Morrison noted. “If this is it, people are going to remember the debate and remember its outcome, in favor of Harris.”