he worst; the best; horrible; shameful; extreme; disgraceful; rich; Marxist were some of the phrases thrown around the intimate stage where leading candidates for president - Democratic nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris and former president Donald Trump contesting on a Republican ticket –mostly spat on issues in a close race.

What started with a cordial handshake soon erupted into a roasting match without substantial answers for swing voters.

The debate held peculiar significance for the two White House aspirants. Harris found herself on the campaign trail after President Joe Biden’s poor performance in June cost him his candidacy. During her term as VP, Harris has remained a side note to Biden administration. She was facing her notoriously outspoken opponent in a debate for the first time, to redefine herself for voters ambivalent of her ability to lead the country. While she was able to woo sceptical Democrats with her stance on issues like abortion, housing and child tax cut for families, she treaded cautiously on established Democratic and liberal stances on United States’ support of Israel and Ukraine. Halfway through the debate it was clear she was going to bait him.

Trump kept chasing the squirrels thrown at him. Debates are intense, and Trump unabashedly displayed his narcissism. Unsurprisingly, he kept making outrageous statements, throwing around alternative facts and glorified claims to fearless leadership: illegal immigrants eating cats and dogs might have been his weakest moment. Whenever Trump’s gaze has wandered off the teleprompter in the past, his mind has driven into tirades over crowd sizes, unfair media treatment, rigged elections and political witch-hunt. This debate was no different.

“I’m talking now, does that sound familiar?” sounds like a soundbite from a teenage sitcom but it was one of the many outbursts from the former president who was specially ticked off when his opponent commented on his legal troubles for economic and security crimes. He responded with “they’re taking over towns,” and “they’re dangerous” and “we have to get ’em out fast” and “I created one of the greatest economies in the history of our country.” He was clearly speaking to his fanbase which, according to polls, overwhelmingly buys into his xenophobic claim.

Whenever Trump’s gaze has wandered off the teleprompter in the past, his mind has driven into tirades over crowd sizes, unfair media treatment, rigged elections and political witch-hunt. This debate was no different.

Harris had her share of hyperboles alluding ambiguously to the Great Depression and the Civil War. After a successful Democratic National Convention last month in Chicago, Harris carried some of the ideas and catchphrases appropriate for a theatrical convention but irrelevant on a debate stage. While she had a clear stance on abortion, Harris often skirted questions, especially when asked about her own economic policy. Her answers were, at times, laden with rhetorical commitment to women’s rights and the need for political unity without elaborating on her plans for voters.

Trump doubled down on his lack of restraint by claiming victory immediately following the debate calling it one of his best nights. “She wants to do another one because she got beaten tonight,” he said while claiming the incoming polls were in his favour. Both the candidates addressed each other like two children in a school yard. This infantilisation of politics into a slur-match comes at the cost of clear stance on crucial issues of climate change, gun violence, drug control, regulation of artificial intelligence and corporate control.

As with previous presidential debates, what follows is a cacophony of reactions from pundits, running mates, seasoned politicians and voters. This, alongside online polls, is the verdict on debate performance. For left-wing and liberal media, Harris had nailed it. Her running mate Tim Walz beamed as he attacked Trump in his own words, aged and incoherent, “he shouldn’t be near the White House.”

“Lot of slogans and not a lot of substance,” concluded Trump’s running mate JD Vance who complained about high grocery prices and Kamala allowing illegal immigrants in the same breath. Right-wing media picked up headlines that validated Trump’s victimisation at the hands of biased media coverage, accusing ABC’s moderators of blatant partiality. The well-prepared moderators fact-checked some of Trump’s claims while taking the vice president on her word.

Presidential debates have historically helped swing voters make up their mind. The most recent example of this was Barack Obama’s weak performance in his first debate with Mitt Romney in 2012. Obama regained confidence and control in every debate that followed. With 2024 elections around the corner, despite losing his footing, Trump and Harris remain close in a race that has both national and global implications.

Noam Chomsky once expressed hope that Americans leaders of the current generation are the last of the imperialists. Donald Trump and Kamala Harris would take issue with that. If the first, and probably the last, presidential debate is any indication of what the American public can expect, it is another ambitious president eager to maintain the global status quo.

The writer is a US-based freelancer. She can be reached at sikandar.sarah@gmail.com