Why Harris’s debate win won’t matter on Election Day 

On style, Kamala Harris won her first debate with Donald Trump. She exceeded the low expectations that had been set for her, and she prepared sufficiently well to not have a meltdown like Joe Biden’s in June.

But she failed to achieve four strategic goals to advance her candidacy with independent and undecided voters.

Strategically, Harris needed to use the debate to establish clear differences with Trump on two key issues: economy and immigration. On the economy, Trump is preferred over her by 10 points, according to the Pew Research. On immigration, he is preferred by a seven-point margin. Harris failed to gain ground on these. 

To move voters, Harris had to accomplish four strategic objectives: 

First, she had to declare her independence by distancing herself from the failures of the Biden administration. Biden was elected to heal a divided nation and return the economy to pre-pandemic levels. On Day One, he decided to transform the economy around green energy and restructure our society to achieve social justice through equity. The problem for Harris is that she has fully committed to these goals, based on her previous statements. Therefore, she cannot distance herself from the programs that were created and the spending that was committed, which spurred the inflation problem we have today. 

Gallup polling in January 2020, the height of the Trump economy pre-pandemic, found 41 percent of Americans were somewhat/very satisfied with the country’s direction was going; in 2024, that number has dipped to 20 percent. Harris now needs to acknowledge the issue, take some level of responsibility and commit to doing better, by presenting a comprehensive strategy. She failed at all three. 

Second, she had to address the fact that she has changed her position on nearly every important policy issue. The right to change your view of issues is a given, but when you are seeking the presidency, it is your duty to explain to the American people why and how this evolution occurred. This is where her strategy to avoid the press has hurt her — she never created a narrative around her evolution to build upon, and this made it more difficult to believe such an evolution at the debate. In the end, she failed to make the case for “moderate” Kamala Harris. 

Third, she had to come out of the debate as the established candidate of change. This requires she distance herself from Joe Biden and establish her credentials as a moderate. Being the change candidate would validate her campaign’s main assertion that voters need to turn the page on Trump. But this was an exceedingly challenging task for Harris because she is the incumbent vice president; she already has the power to change things right now, as Trump highlighted in his closing statement. 

The problem for Harris is that elections for a second term in the minds of voters are usually about staying the course. In 2024, most voters want to turn the page on Biden’s economy, immigration and crime policies. This may help explain a recent New York Times-Sienna poll that found Trump is seen as the candidate of change by 53 percent of voters polled, compared to 25 percent for Harris. Harris’s failure to clearly establish herself as the candidate of change will force her to defend “staying the course” by redefining the Biden-Harris administration to voters. 

Lastly, Harris needed to convey a clear vision for where she wants to take America. She has framed her vision in the broadest of terms as an “opportunity economy.” In her speech in Raleigh, N.C., she said, “As president, I will be laser focused on creating opportunities for the middle class that advance their economic security, stability and dignity. Together, we will build what I call an opportunity economy.”  

But what does that mean? Details matter. Harris’s failure to make her vision more than a series of unconnected soundbites and disjointed policy prescriptions made her case unconvincing. In the end, members of key voter blocs who participated in post-debate focus groups felt Harris was the risky choice, even though many of them did not like Trump’s style. 

Harris’s debate communications needed clear goals and objectives more than rehearsed style points to move the target audience to vote for her. The ball was in her court, and the hill she had to climb was steep. Harris focused on abortion voters, whom she already had, and Trump haters, who were already solidly in her camp. This is why her performance fell short as strategic communications. This is why she won on style but lost on points. 

Dennis M. Powell is a strategic management consultant at Massey Powell and author of the book, “Leading from the Top: Presidential Lessons in Issues Management.”