by Josue Sanchez, co-Editor-in-Chief

Last Tuesday’s Presidential Debate between current Democrat Vice President Kamala Harris and former Republican President Donald Trump presented competing perspectives for the United States going forward, especially as the Presidential Election on November 5th quickly approaches.

This debate occurred in the shadow of the many significant events that have impacted the 2024 election cycle, affecting both parties involved in the debate.

On July 13th, there was an assassination attempt on former President Trump. On July 21st, current President Joe Biden withdrew from the 2024 presidential race, endorsing Vice President Harris as his successor. This occurred in the aftermath of the first Presidential Debate on June 27th, which was widely considered to be a poor showing on President Biden’s part. This drastically impacted the discourse around his mental acuity and affected his chances to win the race.

That most recent Biden-Trump debate seemed more like a spectacle, lacking the professionalism and content that a formal Presidential Debate should require.

Since then, Vice President Harris has rallied support for her campaign and chosen Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as her vice presidential candidate. Since the end of the Democratic National Convention (DNC) in late August, she has been able to maintain a level of support that President Biden could not attain, and her campaign generally seems to be stronger than what the president had to offer.

Many things have also occurred within the Republican Party, led by the former 45th President. Former President Trump’s appeal amongst the party has remained high even after his loss in 2020, an election that saw him earn more votes than he did in 2016 when he beat former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. His opponent’s poor showing in the first Presidential Debate this year further maintained this appeal, leading him to be viewed as the favorite for a majority of the Summer.

His campaign has not been without tumultuous events, however. Earlier this year, the former president was charged by a New York jury on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. He was, of course, also the target of an assassination attempt carried out on July 13th while holding a campaign rally in Pennsylvania.

On September 10th, former President Trump and Vice President Harris met at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia to hold the debate, which was also the first time the candidates had met. The debate was moderated by current ABC News anchors David Muir and Linsey Davis, each with more than 15 years of experience in the field of journalism.

Across a span of 90 minutes, the two candidates were asked about topics ranging from the economy to foreign policy. The two candidates expressed their current stances regarding the ongoing conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine and presented visions for bolstering an inflation-ridden economy.

This debate presented a stronger image of American politics when compared to the last debate.

Still, it is impossible to not notice a trend that has persisted in the recent discussions even prior to the election: the lack of policies or discussions pertaining to them. This was generally present amongst both candidates, who were seen dodging specific questions pertaining to policies they wished to implement.

Current St. John Bosco High School Social Studies Department Chair and Instructor, Ms. Megan Fennell, watched the debate live. As an instructor of various history courses for sophomore and senior students, she observed this same lack of discussion regarding actual policies.

“It wasn’t so much focusing on policy or procedures,” said Ms. Fennell. “It was all about who could get the soundbite.”

She also commented on the relative lack of fact-checking that occurred on the debate – on both sides.

Some of the exceptions to this general theme included Vice President Harris’ closing statement, where she gave a vague idea of the types of plans she would implement into her campaign.

Echoing the struggles that Americans have faced in the past four years, she said she intends “to create an opportunity economy, investing in small businesses, in new families, in what [the Democratic Party] can do around protecting seniors, what [the Party] can do that is about giving hard-working folks a break in bringing down the cost of living.”

Despite this, both candidates stayed away from mentioning specific policies. Rather, they appealed to the broader themes that exist within each of their political parties.

Vice President Harris, for example, continued the Democratic Party’s strategy by emphasizing the potential issues found within the opposing Republican Party. This can best be seen with the extensive mention of “Project 2025,” the 900-page document made by the Heritage Foundation, outlining many of its future policy aims.

These beliefs have been considered outrageous and threatening by Democrats, making Harris’ use of the document effective among her base of support. However, former President Trump has not endorsed the project, distancing himself from its more radical proposals.

“What you’re going to hear tonight is a detailed and dangerous plan called Project 2025 that the former president intends on implementing if he were elected again,” the vice president said.

She also attempted to showcase the issues within the opposing party, citing examples of actions that the former President took when he was in office.

This, again, seemed effective at capturing her core audience—Democratic voters—by trying to showcase the potential dangers that could result from the Republican Party gaining power. Her appeals to emotion and anecdotes also helped in reaffirming the beliefs of Democratic voters.

Some, however, have seen these appeals as not enough to sway independent voters over to her side, as many felt that her performance lacked the additional policies needed to earn pivotal votes in swing states.

Former President Trump took a similar strategy when it came to the debate, despite more bombastic execution. His emphasis was also mainly based on attacking the opposing party. However, much of his attention was directed towards President Biden, in an attempt to tie the vice president to the unpopular administration to which she currently belongs.

This was especially noticeable toward the end of the debate when the former president stated that Vice President Harris was trying to distance herself from President Biden and his policies to positively impact her image.

“She is Biden. She’s trying to get away from Biden,” said Trump. “I don’t know the gentleman, she says. She is Biden.”

This approach also resonated well within his base of support. In the months prior to the debate, issues regarding the economy have plagued President Biden’s approval rate. Due to the relative recency of Vice President Harris’ campaign, this strategy was one of the more effective things they could do to retain their voter base.

Former President Trump also emphasized the economic and immigration issues that have occurred under the Biden Administration.

This debate was not without its tense moments. At approximately 25 minutes into the debate, before the candidates began their discussions regarding immigration, both candidates talked over each other, trying to counteract the statements made by the other candidate regarding abortion issues.

A majority of pundits have assessed Vice President Harris as the victor last Tuesday, but in large part due to her style. That being said, it is unlikely that the debate will change the minds of many across the nation, given the overall lack discussion around policy.

Both candidates doubled down in favor of a more emotional, persuasive approach, which led to both candidates trying to fault the other side constantly. This type of debate tends to favor the rise of partisanship, where both candidates appeal to their loyal fanbases and leave independents voters feeling ignored.

By now, most eligible voters are committed to voting for a particular candidate, and the few independents that remain would likely have not been fully captured by either side as a result of the lack of concrete ideas for voters to assess.

Despite its somewhat anticlimactic short-term results, the second Presidential Debate of 2024 still presents a view into the future of elections in the United States—a view which shows greater reliance on partisan ideas, groups and identities to gain the favor of voters. This is something important to watch, especially as the people of the United States become more affected by the polarization entrenched in our political systems.

Ms. Fennell is one voter that hopes for the emphasis on policies to return.

“We can go back to focusing on the facts, focusing on policy. Essentially being grown-ups, even if it is boring.”