Expert Insights: Reactions to the Harris-Trump Presidential Debate

CAWP has called on gender and politics experts in previous election cycles to contribute their thoughts on campaign themes and dynamics. Again in election 2024, we invited over fifty scholars and practitioners to share their research and practice-based insights on gender and intersectional dynamics in this year’s elections. Their expertise should inform the national political dialogue and encourage new and nuanced conversations in the final months of both the presidential and down ballot campaigns. 

This month, we invited experts to respond briefly to two questions following the presidential debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump:

• How – if at all – was gender at play in the presidential debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump? And how – if at all – did gender intersect with other axes of identity such as race, party, or age, to shape candidate or moderator behavior or interactions, or potentially audience reactions?
• What aspects of your own gender research or programming were illustrated and/or evident in the debate? Explain. 

Their responses are below. We will solicit expert insights one additional time before November 2024. Please stay tuned to CAWP’s Election Watch for future updates. 

Trump’s repeated misinformation about abortion at the debate contributes to the “infodemic” that is shaping voters’ support for abortion rights.

Erin Cassese 
Professor of Political Science and International Relations, University of Delaware 

Former President Trump repeated what are now familiar talking points about abortion – that Democrats support “abortion in the ninth month” and even “execution after birth.” He was fact-checked by moderator Linsey Davis, who reminded the audience that killing a baby after it’s born is illegal throughout the United States. Though this particular piece of misinformation has been popularized by President Trump and other Republican leaders after the Dobbs decision, misinformation about abortion is fairly widespread and includes not only incorrect information about when abortion can legally occur, but also unsubstantiated links to negative health outcomes, such as breast cancer and depression. Some public health scholars have argued misinformation is so pervasive that it meets the World Health Organization’s criteria for an “infodemic.” Research I’ve conducted with colleagues at the University of Delaware shows the political implications of this abortion infodemic. Voters who believe misinformation about abortion are much less likely to support abortion rights than voters with accurate information – and this is true across party lines, among Democrats and Republicans. You can read more about this research here.

Harris’ presidential campaign messaging offers a new opportunity to observe the ways in which Black women navigate the political landscape in contemporary American politics.

Nadia E. Brown 
Professor of Government and Chair of the Women’s and Gender Studies Program, Georgetown University
Contributor to The Kamala Harris Project

Sarah Allen Gershon 
Professor of Political Science, Georgia State University

One prominent exchange we observed during the debate revolved around Vice President Harris’ identity. When asked about Trump’s comments at the National Association of Black Journalists conference, Harris did not talk about her own racial identity but rather focused on the divisiveness of Trump’s comments, as well as his own record on race-related issues, pointing out Trump’s discriminatory leasing practices against Black renters, the Central Park 5, and false claims about President Obama’s birthplace. In exchanges like this, Harris is noticeably sidestepping the question of her identity and allowing surrogates to play that up for her. This approach stands in contrast to Hillary Clinton’s leaning in on her gender during the 2016 presidential race.  Our research often finds that Black women political elites use their identity as a talking point to demonstrate their connectedness with other marginalized groups – particularly when they are speaking to Black audiences. But this tactic is less common in appeals to more diverse audiences.  Harris’ presidential campaign messaging – including last week’s debate – offers a new opportunity to observe the ways in which Black women navigate the political landscape in contemporary American politics. Parker et al. (2020) find minority candidates often couple deracialization with an ability to capitalize on white guilt. This appears to be a rhetorical strategy that Harris leveraged during the debate. Vice President Harris is following the post-Obama playbook by appealing to voters who prefer not to directly engage in discussions of race or racism, instead seeking support from groups that she does not descriptively represent. This may be a strategy to reach out to white women who have been shown to be reliable Republican voters in past elections. Harris’ distance from directly addressing her racial identity during the debate may signal a new phase in how minority women candidates seeking executive office can maneuver around race-baiting comments that are intended to stoke racist sentiments among American voters.

Harris’ appeals to women demonstrate that Democrats continue to see women as a central bloc of voters and donors alike.

Danielle Thomsen 
Associate Professor of Political Science, University of California, Irvine

The presidential debate provided further evidence of the Democratic Party's attention to women voters and donors. Kamala Harris spoke at length about issues that matter to women (and many men), notably reproductive rights and childcare costs. In previous work with Michele Swers, we show that Democratic women candidates raise more money from women donors than their male counterparts. Harris' appeals to women demonstrate that Democrats continue to see women as a central bloc of voters and donors alike. Donald Trump's muddled positions on reproductive rights may pose a challenge for Republicans running for other offices as well, particularly in light of recent support for abortion access at the ballot box even in more conservative states. The abortion issue is simply not doing any favors for Republican candidates, especially those running in competitive races.  

For more data on women donors in election 2024, see CAWP’s Women, Money, & Politics Watch.

Harris used the debate to present herself as the change candidate.

Michele Swers 
Professor of American Government, Georgetown University

While views of Donald Trump are largely set in stone, the debate presented an opportunity to define Harris. Harris wanted to claim the mantle of change, or as she frames it, be the candidate who is looking to the future. The gender dynamics of presidential politics make it more difficult for women to be the change candidate. Because the presidency is associated with men and male leadership traits, women who run are focused on demonstrating their experience to show they are fit to lead. Thus, in 2008 and 2016, Hillary Clinton leaned into her long resume of domestic and foreign policy leadership. In 2020, Elizabeth Warren was the candidate who had a detailed plan for every policy question. Similarly, news coverage of Kamala Harris is routinely prefaced with the fact that she will be the first Black, South Asian, and female president, creating even more pressure for her to reassure the public that she has the necessary experience and qualifications to lead. Yet, because Harris became the nominee in a process that resembled a parliamentary system where party leaders rally around a candidate, her ascendancy was not accompanied by gendered media coverage of her policy positions and self-presentation. This has allowed her to chart a different path where she is the fresh face who can target the median voter with a message of hope for the future. It is no surprise that Harris would relish a second debate with Trump in which she could continue to highlight her message of turning the page and being the candidate of change. 

This debate shows the limits of strategies designed to “put women in their place.”

Farida Jalalzai 
Professor of Political Science and Associate Dean of Global Initiatives and Engagement, Virginia Tech

One of the many ways that gender was on display in the debate was Donald Trump painting Harris as having no policy agenda of her own and being controlled by President Biden. Trump repeatedly referred to Biden as Harris’ boss and did this with purpose. The goal is to cast doubt on women’s ability to lead and to disempower them. Ironically, Trump employs this strategy because he is indeed very much threated by Harris. He knows very well that Harris poses the much bigger obstacle to his return to the presidency than Biden ever did this election cycle. During the debate, Harris made clear that she would not be relegated to the sidelines: “You’re not running against Joe Biden. You're running against me.” This debate shows the limits of strategies designed to “put women in their place” and the opportunities offered to women when they directly challenge long-standing tropes.

That Harris – but not Trump – must maintain professionalism underscores the double standards shaping this election. 

Jennifer M. Piscopo 
Professor of Gender and Politics, Royal Holloway University of London

Both candidates made calculated choices, but their strategies have gendered and racialized dimensions. Trump withheld basic courtesy, treating Harris more as an object than a person, consistent with his well-documented misogyny and racism. Harris, meanwhile, rose above Trump’s disdain, becoming the “bigger person.” That Harris – but not Trump – must maintain professionalism underscores the double standards shaping this election: Trump’s debate statements contained myriad falsehoods, but it’s Harris’ proposals that receive more scrutiny.

Many women of color voters know about being “twice as good,” only to get half as far.

Christine M. Slaughter 
Assistant Professor of Political Science, Boston University

During the debate, we saw the resolve and preparedness of Harris, which was in stark contrast to Trump’s agitation and lack of coherence at times. First, according to CNN, Trump had more speaking time than Harris. He interrupted the moderators more. But the moderators also allowed Trump to continue speaking beyond his initial interruptions more than they allowed Harris to do the same. In addition to the presidential candidates, the moderators also have race-gendered identities. I noticed Harris’ facial expression and disposition shift throughout the discussion. That spoke volumes. I would say that many voters, especially Black women voters, understood that inability to verbalize one’s level of frustration. Similarly, many women of color voters know about being “twice as good,” only to get half as far. 

A debate was previously scheduled between Trump and Biden at Virginia State University, an HBCU in Petersburg, Virginia. That debate is seemingly canceled due to Biden's departure from the race and Trump's statement that he won't participate in a third debate and another debate with Harris. This is symbolic. Harris, the first presidential candidate from a major party to graduate from an HBCU, would have participated in the first presidential debate at an HBCU. Seeing Harris debate at an HBCU could have attracted additional Black voters at the intersection of their gendered, ethnic, and class identities who might be drawn to the debate because of the venue selection.

Trump’s actions during the debate exemplify a broader and deeply ingrained pattern of discrimination and erasure, where women of color and Indigenous women face additional barriers and dismissive treatment.

Anathea Chino (Acoma Pueblo)
Executive Director and Co-Founder, Advance Native Political Leadership

The recent debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump highlighted the intersection of gender, race, and identity. Trump’s refusal to address Harris by her name or title, his avoidance of eye contact, and his racially charged remarks revealed a troubling disregard for her authority and humanity.

This behavior reflects broader patterns of discrimination faced by Indigenous women in politics. For instance, Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan (White Earth Ojibwe) contends daily with reminders of historical trauma, including a statue outside her office of a man responsible for the forced removal of Indigenous people in Minnesota. Former Kansas State Rep. Ponka-We Victors-Cozad (Tohono O'odham and Ponca) faced racist remarks on the House floor about her gavel, likened to a tomahawk. These are just two examples of the ongoing struggle Indigenous women face to assert our legitimacy and presence in political spaces.

Trump’s actions during the debate exemplify a broader and deeply ingrained pattern of discrimination and erasure, where women of color and Indigenous women face additional barriers and dismissive treatment. This intersection of gender, race, and identity exposes the systemic inequities that continue to undermine the authority and presence of leaders like Vice President Harris and countless Indigenous women in political spaces. The debate serves as a stark reminder of the urgent need to dismantle these oppressive structures and foster a political landscape where all leaders, regardless of their identity, are treated with the respect and equity they deserve.

In the debate, Harris effectively navigated complex layers of scrutiny that women candidates, particularly women of color, face.

A'shanti F. Gholar
President, Emerge

While neither candidate explicitly stated Vice President Harris’ gender, there’s no question it was ever present during last week’s presidential debate. It was there, from exchanges about identity and race to those about policy and legislation. When Harris came with hard facts about how dangerous Trump’s extreme abortion bans are for women, Trump came with false claims about Democrats supporting abortion after birth. When Harris laid out Trump’s history of racist controversies, Trump claimed that he still did not know Harris’ race.

Women candidates, particularly women of color, are subjected to complex layers of scrutiny in a way that their male counterparts are not. As a Black and South Asian woman, Harris had to strike a delicate balance to appear smart but not condescending, firm but not angry, warm but not soft, prepared but not scripted, and so on. She did that incredibly effectively, and it showed both during the debate and in the reaction after. 

At Emerge, we’re honest about the fact that we can’t take sexism or racism completely out of politics. It’s going to take time, investment, and dedication to move the needle in the right direction. Emerge will keep training women to be great candidates with a network of support. Harris – the original Emerge woman – showed us again why our work is so important. 

Harris’ performance was a textbook example of how lived experiences inform political leadership.

Erin Vilardi 
Founder and CEO, Vote Run Lead Action

Kamala Harris’ performance was a textbook example of how lived experiences inform political leadership. As the first woman of color on the presidential debate stage, she repeatedly demonstrated how her experiences allow her to understand the intersectionality and complexities of issues impacting Americans across the country. Harris’ response on abortion was an answer only a woman could have given, one that centered women and the devastating impact of being unable to get reproductive care. Donald Trump’s response on abortion barely mentioned women. 

Women were quick to observe that Trump refused to look in her direction and resorted to calling Harris “she” or “her” because we know what it’s like to be ignored by a man who thinks he knows more than you. Through that, Harris stood confident and proud about who she is: the vice president, a prosecutor, a person raised in a middle-class family, a gun owner, and a mixed-race woman. By painting a three-dimensional picture of who she is and how that informs her world view and policies, Kamala Harris is embodying the ethos of “Run As You Are,” a cornerstone of Vote Run Lead Action’s program to train women and gender-expansive people to run for office and win.

Aggressive masculinity and immigrant scapegoating abound in the debate.

Anna Sampaio 
Professor of Ethnic Studies and Political Science, Santa Clara University
Contributor to The Kamala Harris Project

The interplay of gender and race were central to the debate between Vice President Harris and former President Trump, most notably in the descriptive representation that the candidates embodied as the first woman of color presidential nominee of a major political party facing off against the latest wealthy white male in a long line of similarly situated candidates. Notably, there were two women of color at the debate that also included ABC reporter Linsey Davis as one of two debate moderators. The intersections of gender and race were equally central to the topics debated, such as reproductive rights and access to abortion and in vitro fertilization (IVF) and specifically how restrictions on those services created under the Trump administration have created complex and costly burdens for women around the country. 

However, it was the investment in racist stereotyping and aggressive masculinity by Trump and responses by Harris, Davis, and co-moderator David Muir that I found most striking. In particular, Trump centered his debate strategy on trafficking in a long stream of racist stereotyping targeting Latine/x immigrants, Arabs, Blacks, and most notably Haitian immigrants. (Note: The barrage of damaging and completely false claims that Trump advanced have been circulated widely since the debate, and I am consciously choosing not to repeat them here so as not to extend their life cycle.) As I’ve examined in my own research, since the 1990s this type of racialized scapegoating has been a recurring strategy especially prevalent among Republican national candidates seeking to fracture the electorate while masking some of the most damaging and anti-democratic programs and policies. The strategy relies on targeting a minority population and amplifying fear of this group as foreign and threatening while simultaneously terrifying and terrorizing the same community with threats, intimidation, and harassment. In addition, the strategy trades on racial resentment while proffering an aggressive masculine protector as the only antidote – one that requires unmitigated obedience and fidelity from its followers. Deviations from said loyalty are met with hostility and violent reprisals including threats. I document how Trump engaged this same strategy – relying on a duality of racist stereotyping aimed at non-white immigrants coupled with aggressive masculinity – in both his 2016 and 2020 campaigns. In fact, these themes were prevalent throughout his entire presidential tenure and were particularly important as spectacles to distract from harmful and damaging policy shifts including efforts to end DACA, institute a ban on Muslim travel, and separate migrant families while incarcerating children. 

Significantly throughout the debate, Kamala Harris effectively checked this strategy – both calling out false reports of immigrants and racialized stereotypes as ridiculous and undermining any effort by Trump to position himself as the masculine antidote to the fictive migrant threat. In fact, on several occasions, and particularly during the second half of the debate, Harris flipped the traditional masculine presidential script and destabilized Trump by asserting “world leaders were laughing” at him and that Russian President Putin would “eat him for lunch,” while similarly delivering long form responses on foreign policy thereby assuming the role of Commander in Chief in contrast to Trump’s deflated, defensive, and confounded rambling. 

In the end, while Harris clearly walked away from the debate having bested Trump, I was most troubled at how the racist scapegoating of Haitian immigrants continued to circulate well over a week after the debate and how effective the false narrative has been at generating harm to vulnerable communities in Ohio and elsewhere.

Harris demonstrated how her multiracial identity as a woman of color will inform her policies and practices in the Oval Office.

Aimee Allison 
Founder and President, She the People 

On the debate stage, Harris demonstrated how her multiracial identity as a woman of color will inform her policies and practices in the Oval Office. Harris held her own by clearly communicating her plans for the country, while giving no air to baseless attacks against her race and gender. Trump played off of his usual playbook by launching into not only ridiculous but factually inaccurate claims against immigrants and people of color. Harris deflated these attacks, which positioned her as level-headed and strong during the debate.

Harris explained her vision and plan for the future to the American people by speaking directly to them and aligning her own upbringing with their lived experiences. Her stated plans champion economic justice, racial justice, reproductive healthcare, and climate justice. These are issues that are of importance to women of color, who are often disproportionately impacted by the constriction of rights and personal freedoms. In speaking on these important issues, Harris engaged with women of color and exemplified an understanding of what voters value most. This allowed her to show how she will fight to make our country a more equal one by bringing up solutions to ensure the security and prosperity of all people – including marginalized groups. Ultimately, her all-encompassing viewpoint on the debate stage explained how she will be a president for people from all different backgrounds and races. 

I started She The People to build power for women of color to lead America to a new political era. Last week, we saw Kamala Harris, as a woman of color, do exactly that – build power for marginalized groups by pushing back against unfounded and racist attacks against people of color. Ultimately, Kamala Harris took Trump’s low blows and turned them into biting remarks that illustrated her race and gender to be an ultimate strength and a power for change.

For more insights on how gender and race were at play in the presidential debate, see post-debate takes on CAWP’s social media. In addition, last month’s expert Insights on gender and intersectional dynamics in the presidential election and down ballot races is available here.

For additional context and data on gender and the 2024 election, see CAWP's Election Watch. CAWP's post-election reports from previous cycles are also available here. In addition, see expert contributions to CAWP analyses from elections 2016, 2018, 2020, and 2022.