Bloomberg

After Vice President Kamala Harris’s first debate with former President Donald Trump on Tuesday, Democrats across the country breathed a sigh of relief and thought: That’s more like it.

Harris, by widespread consensus, was the clear winner. “Make no mistake about it, Trump had a bad night,” Fox News’s Brit Hume said on the network afterward. “My sense is she came out of this in pretty good shape.”

The narrative of who won, the kind of groupthink of the commentariat, gets endlessly discussed in the days after the debate — and, in this case, that narrative is that Harris won by effectively baiting Trump.

It’s too early to say how much the debate will impact the race. But, running the briefest presidential campaign in modern history, the stakes were high for Harris — voters have seen little of her so far, particularly in unscripted high-pressure settings like a debate. And she delivered the strong performance she needed. 

—Andrew Prokop

Before the debate, the conventional wisdom was that, to have a strong night, Trump needed to remain focused on tying Harris to the Biden administration’s unpopular record on the economy, immigration, and foreign policy. He had to avoid minefields for him on his weakest issues, abortion and democracy. And he needed to avoid getting sidetracked on rants or conspiracy theories.

But he mostly failed to do those things.

On abortion, Trump took credit for the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, saying it happened “through the genius and heart and strength” of the conservative justices.

He also repeatedly dodged the question of whether he’d veto a national abortion ban if Congress sent one to his desk — saying (probably accurately) that Congress wouldn’t pass such a ban. And yet, despite several opportunities, he couldn’t bring himself to clearly say he’d veto such a bill. 

Asked whether he regretted anything he did on January 6, 2021, when his supporters attacked the US Capitol, he didn’t come up with anything. He complained that one of his supporters, Ashli Babbitt, “was shot by an out of control police officer.” (Babbitt and other angry rioters were trying to breach the last barrier separating them from members of Congress who feared for their lives.)

And he repeatedly voiced ludicrous-sounding conspiracy theories about immigrants eating cats and dogs, or states executing babies after they are born.

While it is true that Trump hit Harris on inflation and the border many times, it seems unlikely that any of that messaging will sink in when he was saying so many other bizarre and nonsensical things that will get far more attention.

—Andrew Prokop

In the days before the debate, it had seemed that the good vibes Kamala Harris had enjoyed since her sudden ascent as the Democratic presidential nominee were in danger of disappearing.

Polls showed a very close toss-up race. A New York Times/Siena College poll released Sunday even showed Trump taking the lead by 1 percentage point nationally — an excellent result for Trump, given the Electoral College’s slant against Democrats.

But in retrospect, Harris’s avoidance of the media helped her debate performance have more impact. She preferred a high-stakes setting where she’d be contrasted with Trump over one in which she’d be squaring off against journalists.

And she was very effective at drawing that contrast.

Harris hammered home her core message that Trump only cares about himself, not ordinary Americans. She repeated, several times, that her campaign plan includes tax cuts for young families and tax deductions for startup small businesses. She voiced righteous outrage about how Trump’s Supreme Court appointees eliminated national abortion rights protections. She promised to unite Americans rather than divide them, and said she’d represent a new generation of leadership.

Repeatedly, she baited Trump into wasting time indulging in his narcissism — asked about immigration, she threw in a claim that people often leave Trump’s rallies early. Trump couldn’t resist using some of his time to clarify that his rallies are great and everyone loves him.

It was clear that Harris did not want to talk about inflation — not wanting to get drawn into a discussion about Biden’s record, in contrast to her own tax plan. Asked why she no longer supported some very progressive positions she took while running for president in 2020, she really didn’t give a clear answer on why.

But where she had points to make and punches to land on Tuesday night, she did.

—Andrew Prokop

David Muir and Linsey Davis had a difficult task going into Tuesday night’s debate, but the moderators ran a tight debate, keeping the candidates to their allotted times (for the most part) and finding the right moments to step in to fact-check as needed.

A particularly striking moment came when Trump repeated multiple times the false claim that Democrats support killing babies even after birth. Trump went on to ramble about how he is fine with abortion policy being decided by the states, and waffled about his support for a national abortion ban. As soon as he finished, Davis clarified to the audiences at home: “There is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it’s born.”

Similarly, when Trump expounded on the racist far-right conspiracy theories that undocumented immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, are killing and eating pets, Muir once again fact-checked the claim, saying ABC News “did reach out to the city manager there. He told us there have been no credible reports of specific claims of pets being harmed, injured, or abused by individuals within the immigrant community.”

And yet, despite the rules allowing the moderators to mute mics to prevent crosstalk, Trump was repeatedly allowed to talk over Harris, to get the final word during exchanges, and generally to speak for longer than Harris — a fact that rankled liberal viewers.

Ultimately, the moderators did a good job of keeping the debate on track, at least to the degree you can when moderating a debate involving Trump. They walked a fine line and managed to mostly stay on it.

—Christian Paz

The national debate over immigration has shifted greatly, and that was on full display Tuesday night.

In 2020, Democrats emphasized Trump’s cruelty toward asylum seekers and other migrants at the border, while Trump made exaggerated — or outright false — claims about the alleged dangers immigrants posed to citizens’ safety and sovereignty.

Throughout the 2024 campaign, Trump has only grown more extreme in his rhetoric. But Democrats have pivoted greatly. On Tuesday, Harris eschewed any significant mention of immigrants’ plight — or their massive contributions to the country. Instead, Harris criticized Trump for urging Republicans in Congress not to vote for a right-wing border bill that Democrats tried to pass in February. 

The bill was a bipartisan compromise that would have instituted a Republican priority — a new authority to quickly expel migrants arriving on the southern border at times of high demand — in exchange for something Democrats wanted: closing gaps in the legal immigration system that have left everyone from the children of high-skilled foreign workers to Afghan refugees in limbo.

“He preferred to run on a problem instead of fixing a problem,” Harris said.

At no point in the exchange, however, did the Democrat come to the defense of immigrants — a marked departure from the political dynamic that has ruled this issue for years. And that is perhaps a reflection of the fact that anti-immigrant sentiment in the electorate is higher than at any point since the early 2000s, just after the 9/11 terror attacks.

Border crossings have come down significantly in recent months due to a crackdown by Mexican authorities and Biden’s implementation of new asylum restrictions. Voters have correspondingly become more favorable toward Harris on immigration. But Harris nevertheless did not seem compelled in the debate to take a more empathetic stance on immigration.

—Nicole Narea

Pedro Ugarte/AFP via Getty

Seemingly the only way a presidential debate could possibly be overshadowed would be to have the biggest star in the world break some news immediately after it — which is what happened when Taylor Swift officially endorsed Harris via an Instagram post about half an hour after the end of the debate.

“Like many of you, I watched the debate tonight,” Swift wrote. “I will be casting my vote for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz in the 2024 Presidential Election … I’ve done my research, and I’ve made my choice. Your research is all yours to do, and the choice is yours to make.”

The endorsement comes after some uncertainty over whether Swift would even comment on the election, despite vocally supporting Democrats in past elections. But tonight, “Swifties for Kamala” got their wish.

Swift’s endorsement offered the slyest of subtweets of Trump’s running mate Sen. JD Vance. She signed off the endorsement as a “childless cat lady” — the most influential one alive.

—Christian Paz

 See more coverage of the debate and the 2024 campaigns on Vox.com, and be sure to sign up to get our election newsletter, The election, explained, in your inbox here.

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

JD Vance’s racist cat-eating conspiracy theory, explained: Republican vice presidential nominee Sen. JD Vance and other Republicans have been falsely claiming that Haitian immigrants have been killing and eating pets. The falsehood was even repeated by Donald Trump during last night's debate. Tens of thousands of Haitian immigrants have migrated to Vance’s native Ohio recently, which might explain why he’s attempted to stoke anti-Haitian sentiment online.

Possible presidential tax philosophies: You may have come away from last night's debate looking for specifics about Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris’s and former President Donald Trump’s tax plans. While taxation is controlled by Congress, not the executive branch, here’s what we know about their economic views on the matter. 

Is a government shutdown coming? The last act of Congress funding the federal government expires on September 30. Unless Congress passes new funding legislation by the end of the month, much of the government will shut down. House Speaker Mike Johnson wants to use this deadline to force through a Republican bill called the “Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act” or “SAVE Act,” which would require new voters to submit “documentary proof of United States citizenship,” making it harder to register to vote in all 50 states.

Kate Middleton is cancer-free: Catherine, the Princess of Wales, announced this week that she has completed chemotherapy for the cancer diagnosis she first revealed to the public in March. She will resume some public events and duties. At age 42, Middleton isn’t alone in her battle: Worldwide, more and more people under age 50 are developing cancers.

Selling Sunset is back: Season 7 of the absurdist, ambient real estate reality show is now streaming on Netflix. If you need a refresher on everything that happened at the Oppenheim Group last season, here’s a breakdown on all the drama.

The fame monster: Chappell Roan has landed one of her first major cover stories. In an interview with Rolling Stone, the red-hot pop artist talks about her struggles with her newfound fame, including being stalked, sexually harassed, and having her dad’s phone number leaked by fans. [Rolling Stone]

A diversity downturn: Last summer, a Supreme Court ruling passed barring schools from explicitly considering race in their admissions decisions. Selective colleges and universities across the country are feeling the impact, with enrollment declines showing especially in the lower percentage of Black students in some class makeups. [The Wall Street Journal]

Anadolu

— Gisèle Pelicot, whose husband Dominique Pelicot is accused of drugging her over the course of a decade and sexually assaulting her, as well as inviting dozens of other men to sexually assault her while she was unconscious. 

While Gisele Pelicot had the option of a private trial, she decided to make the proceedings public in order to support and raise awareness for other victims of similar crimes. You can read more about the horrific case and how it has brought conversations about #MeToo and abuse to the forefront of the media in France and worldwide here.

 Christophe Simon/AFP via Getty Images

Explain It to Me is Vox’s new series focused on answering your questions. Check out the trailer here. 

The podcast is your hotline for all of your unanswered questions, and host Jonquilyn Hill is your friendly guide who will find you the answers you’re looking for — and maybe even the ones you don’t expect. You can always call us at 1-800-618-8545 or fill out this form and tell us what’s on your mind.

The podcast launches on September 18.

Are you enjoying the Today, Explained newsletter? Forward it to a friend; they can sign up for it right here. 

And as always, we want to know what you think. Specifically: If there is a topic you want us to explain or a story you’re curious to learn more about, let us know by filling out this form or just replying to this email. 

Today’s edition was produced and edited by senior editor Lavanya Ramanathan, with contributions from staff editor Melinda Fakuade. We'll see you tomorrow!

Become a Vox Member

Support our journalism — become a Vox Member and you’ll get exclusive access to the newsroom with members-only perks including newsletters, bonus podcasts and videos, and more.

This email was sent to you. Manage your email preferences or unsubscribe. If you value Vox’s unique explanatory journalism, support our work with a one-time or recurring contribution.

View our Privacy Notice and our Terms of Service.

Vox Media, 1701 Rhode Island. NW, Washington, DC 20036.
Copyright © 2024. All rights reserved.