Graphic by Evelyn Kim ’25/The Choate News
By Thomas Lovse ’27 Opinions Writer
Vice President Kamala Harris has a big problem: nobody knows what she stands for. She explained that her values haven’t changed, yet she flip-flopped on all major policy positions she held over the last 20 years. The Presidential debate on September 10 should’ve served as an opportunity for a further glimpse into Harris, yet it only enabled her to remain ambiguous.
From the start of her campaign, Harris took very few questions from the press and only participated in a handful of interviews, all of which were rehearsed. Voters such as myself aren’t sure what a Harris presidency would entail, and her radical yet convenient policy changes aren’t doing her any favors.
The debate was moderated by ABC News, the only platform the Biden-Harris administration would agree for Harris to appear on. In this advantageous setting, Harris was able to have a powerful debate performance due to the lack of restraints placed on her. It was a complete disappointment; the moderators were entirely biased against Former President Donald Trump P’00. During the debate, they consistently interrupted and pressed him to follow up, but failed to fact-check Harris even once despite her false claims. For instance, Harris claimed falsehoods such as, “Trump will sign a national abortion ban” or “Trump is against IVF treatments,” despite these being issues Trump has disavowed. Both candidates made false and misleading statements during the debate, but Harris was allowed to get away with them every time, reflecting an abhorrent failure of the moderators to keep a neutral environment.
Trump failed to accomplish his mission of rightfully pinning the tribulations of America on the current Biden administration and exposing the potential risks of a Harris presidency. Trump allowed Harris to bait him, such as when he was put on the defensive when asked about his rally crowd sizes.
The candidates’ running mates, Ohio Senator JD Vance and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, faced off in the vice-presidential debate on October 1. I perceived it as such that each candidate had their own separate objectives: Vance to humanize Trump and reassure voters of his fitness to hold the position of President, and Walz to make the Trump-Vance ticket seem weird, dangerous, and out of touch with American voters. Walz opened the debate with a shaky tone and stubmled over his words, mixing up Iran and Israel twice. On the contrary, Vance gave numerous responses that revealed him as knowledgeable, mannered, articulated, and calm. He slammed Harris on her inability to fulfill her promises as the current Vice President. Similar to the previous debate, the moderators were abysmal. The official rules were that the moderators would not fact-check candidates, yet they interrupted Vance numerous times. Nevertheless, Vance stood his ground, calling out the moderators and debunking their false fact checks.
Vance performed very well and succeeded in his goal of making a second Trump term seem palatable to voters. However, Walz failed to paint the Trump-Vance campaign as radical and dangerous, as he and Vance found a lot of common ground over certain topics. Walz did nothing to make the Harris administration palatable, leaving the concept of a Harris presidency as enigmatic as before.
These debates have allowed Harris and Walz to remain as much of an enigma as before, while Trump and Vance squandered a golden chance to criticize Harris’ dismal record as Vice President.
