From Schwartz Media. I'm Ruby Jones. This is seven am. The US presidential campaign so far has been largely based on vibes, with the Democrats painting Donald Trump as a threat to democracy and Republicans calling Kamala Harris a radical Marxist who will destroy America, and with the election just around the corner, their first and possibly only debate was
a chance to tell Americans about their visions for the country. So, with polls showing both candidates at a dead heat, what do we learn about what they're actually offering voters?
And i'd invite yet enough that Donald Trump actually has no plan for you, because he is more interested in defending himself than he is in looking out for you.
They have and she has destroyed our country with policy that's insane, almost policy that you'd say they have to hate.
Our country today. Senior researcher at the Australia Institute, doctor Emma shortis on who came out on top of the US presidential debate and whether it was enough to make a difference. It's Thursday, September twelfth, So Emma, we just watched a tight, tense debate between Harris and Trump. Before we get to the details of that debate, what was said.
Can we talk for a moment about its significance, because there was a lot of anticipation ahead of this ninety minutes and it seems like it was a critical moment for both candidates. So why is that?
I think it's such an interesting question, rebe because generally speaking, in American politics and kind of in politics more broadly, debates at don't really matter. They don't tend to sway campaigns until they really do. And we learned that from the last debate, of course, between Joe Biden and Donald Trump. That was really the beginning of the end for Joe Biden.
So it's completely understandable that there was a huge amount of focus on this debate, and I think it was framed correctly as a debate that had much higher stakes for Carmala Harris than it did for Donald Trump. You know, Donald Trump is a seasoned debater. Whatever you think of him, he is excellent at television. He essentially produced his way
into the White House. So the pressure was on Harris really to perform strongly, and as much of the media has framed it, to introduce herself to the American people. So whether it makes or breaks the campaign, I think remains to be seen.
And Carmala Harris in the lead up to the debate, she talked quite a bit about how she wanted policy to be the main focus, and that played out a little Harrison Trump. They did talk about policy, but they also talked about a lot of other things as well. They talked about race, about rallies, about abortion. There was a lot of misinformation. Talk me through what happened.
Look, I think Ruby, it was surprising actually how much policy substance was in this debate.
But her vice presidential pick says abortion in the ninth month is absolutely fine. He also says execution after birth, it's execution, no longer abortion because the baby is born is okay, And that's not okay with me.
You know, you mentioned abortion for example, that there was, of course, you know, Trump's very violent lies about what effectively is the murder of babies that of course doesn't happen. But underneath that there was policy substance. You know, there were Kamala Harris's promises to sign legislation to enshrine abortion rights.
For example, when Congress passes a bill to put back in place the protections of real V. Wade. As President of the United States, I will proudly sign it in to law. But understand, if Donald Trump were to be re elected, he will sign a national abortion ban. Understanding.
There was a lot of policy talk around economics, you know, that framed the debate that opened the debate about inflation, About Trump's plan for tariffs.
Do you believe Americans can afford higher prices because of terroiffs?
They're not going to have higher prices? Which going to have and who's going to have higher prices as China and all of the countries that have been ripping us off for years.
About Harris's plans for housing.
We know that we have a shortage of homes and housing and the cost of housing is too expensive far too many people.
And I think Harris actually showed herself to have quite a command of the policy, and alongside that, I think was also quite masterful in her use of body language and her physical reactions to Donald Trump what he was saying about policy that was really kind of ready made for social media. So there was an awful lot actually packed into that ninety minutes.
And it was clear that Carbola Harris was at certain points really trying to get under Donald Trump's skin. I think the first time I noticed that was when she talked about his rallies, saying that people were tired and bored and leaving his rallies.
And what you will also notice is that people start leaving his rallies early out of exhaustion and boredom. And I will tell you the one thing you will not hear him talk about is you. You will not.
Tell me about that and about his response.
Look, I think you're right, Ruby. She was really successful at getting under his skin. And I think that was an aim from the start. You know, she ignored I think a lot of his egregious lies and pivoted to the substance while very clearly getting under his skin.
She said, people start leaving. People don't go to her rally, there's no reason to go. And the people that do go, she's busting them in and paying them to be there and then showing them in a different late So she and you.
Could see across the debate as it went on, Trump was getting angrier and angrier. You know, he interrupted more and more, he raised his voice more and more, And that is something that many in his campaign and many around him have been trying desperately to avoid.
Another subject what they have done to our country by allowing these millions and millions of people to come into our country. And look at what's happening to the towns all over the United States, and a lot of towns don't want to talk.
What Harris did, and I think she did it quite masterfully, was not get sucked into attempting to fact check Donald Trump, because, I mean, how do you fact check something so ridiculous as a claim that people are eating pets.
You know, in Springfield, they're eating the door, the people that came in, they're eating the cats, They're eating the pets of the people that live there.
And it's not the first time he or his surrogates have said things like this. You know, this was Trump quite clearly speaking almost exclusively to his base, to his kind of right wing Fox News universe. What Harris did was implicitly reinforcing this narrative that Donald Trump and his surrogates are weird.
And one of the big criticisms of Kamala Harris is that she's flip flopped on several issues since twenty nineteen. When she last ran for the presidential nomination. She was asked about that during the debate, not by Trump, by the moderators. What did you think of the way that she handled that question and how much truth is there in that claim.
I think the only response that she can have to that is that exactly as she's been saying, you know that her values remain the same, and that can rely on her to be consistent in those values. And I think what she also successfully did and has done this on a number of fronts, is kind of put that back onto Donald Trump, because of course Trump has changed his policy positions on almost everything that you can think of.
Nowhere is that more clear than on the issue of abortion, where he tries to maintain several quite different policy positions at once, depending on who he's speaking to or who he thinks he's speaking to. And so Harris has I think, successfully combated that in her contrast to Trump. I think the question is whether she's convinced enough and the right voters in the right places. Again, you know, remains to be seen.
What is your sense after watching the debate about how much she might have been able to introduce herself to those voters.
I think Harris did exactly what she needed to in this debate. You know, she didn't win it decisively, but after a little bit of a shaky start in her answer to the first question, she kind of gained in confidence, she gained in strength. She was clearly across the policy detail, and I think she would have assured many Americans who are maybe uncertain of her strength in areas of national security, which of course will play a big role in the election.
She would have reassured many of those voters. And I think she's kind of successfully navigated the line between policy detail and just vibes, you know, because vibes are important in all seriousness. You know, her use of her facial expressions and her body language was ready made for social media, and that will have an impact on the campaign. The Harror's campaign clearly thinks that is at least part of
an avenue to victory. And so I think in those senses, for Harris, the debate was successful and she can she and her supporters can kind of walk out of it confident that they can hold their own against a man who has dominated American politics for upwards of a decade.
Karmala Harris may have won the debate, but is she offering Americans enough to win the election. That's after the break.
So I was raised as a middle class kid, and I am actually the only person on this stage who has a plan that is about lifting up the middle class and working people of America.
And Makamala Harris spoke a lot about the economy during the debate, about small business, about housing, about the middle class. So beyond those sound bites, can you tell me about what she's actually proposing. Yeah?
Sure, So you're right that Harris does have this focus very much on the middle class. She talks about an economy of opportunity and and lifting up the middle class.
I believe in the ambition, the aspirations, the dreams of the American people, and that is why I imagine and have actually a plan to build what I call an opportunity economy.
Because here's the policies that she has announced in that vein. Are you know, what we might call price gouging, So legislating to stop big supermarkets from you know, taking advantage of inflation and raising prices are the critical policy areas as well, like housing for example, and housing affordability, which is playing a similar kind of role in American politics
that it is in Australian politics. So Harris has purposed what Australians would kind of recognize as essentially a first homeowner's bonus of about twenty five thousand dollars, and is also you know, promising things like continuing or increasing the child tax credit. But these are all kind of piecemeal
reforms and they are far from radical. The reason those policies are so specific is because any kind of substantial reform at the moment in American politics, especially anything that requires legislative reform, is basically impossible unless a candidate is able to win both Congress and the White House, so to have the House of Representatives and the Senate, they can't really do any kind of substantial reform. I mean, Harris indirectly acknowledges that when she's talking about abortion, which
has such a strong issue for her. You know, when she says that she will sign a law codifying access to abortion, codifying abortion rights the minute it hits her desk.
The only way to do that in the current system is for one party to win a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, and as things stand at the moment, there is just no prospect of that, which means American politics remains stuck in this stalemate, and neither candidate has any kind of answer to the question of how American politics gets past that.
And can we speak a bit about immigration, because that was one of the issues that Trump clearly thought that he could corner. Carmala Harrison. But the Democrats trying to show that they are just as strong on borders as the Republican Party is. So what is Karmala Harris's policy approach there?
So I'm the only person on this stage who has prosecuted transnational criminal organizations for the trafficking of guns, drugs, and human beings.
And so Harris is focused on the border legislation that has been before Congress as part of the Biden administration, which many Democrats saw as quite a hardline approach to immigration to effectively kind of closing the border at what a judge to be times of considerable pressure. So when more people are arriving at the border and asking to
be processed, you know the border will be closed. So this was a what Biden has framed as a bipartisan piece of legislation that the Republicans were about to pass until Donald Trump effectively told them not to because it would be politically more useful to him to not have this issue go away.
That bill would have put more resources to allow us to prosecute transnational criminal organizations for trafficking and guns, drugs, and human beings. But you know what happened to that bill. Donald Trump got on the phone, called up some folks in Congress and said kill the bill. And you know why.
And so Harris has focused on that and as integrating it into a kind of narrative that she is strong on national security. You know, for Harris, that's a very difficult line to walk because part of what she's also trying to do, quite clearly is to mobilize the young left wing base of the Democratic Party, which is clearly
opposed to these immigration reforms. I don't think Harris is going to convince anybody who's you know, already bought Donald Trump's line about immigration that she's the better option on this issue. You know, if you're a kind of Trump voter in a place like that, who's bought this stuff about, you know, an invasion of immigrants and there's stuff about eating your pets, you know, Harris is not going to
convince you. So I think it's kind of unclear to me what Harris is trying to do here and how she thinks she can walk that line.
And Trump also spoke a lot about how Baden and Harris had destroyed the economy and about crime being out of control. But in terms of how he would change things, how he would address those issues, what is he offering.
I mean, Trump's offering what he's always offered. He's talking about closing the border. He's talking about building a wall. Some of his surrogates are talking about hugely significant reforms like dismantling the Department of Homeland Security and integrating that
kind of border control responsibility into the military. So we're talking about extremely radical reform to the American immigration system alongside things like reinstituting Trump's so called Muslim ban, you know, where particular ethnicities, particular nationalities were targeted for immigration bands. In that sense, I think, you know, Harris's framing of Trump wants to go back is kind of quite accurate.
You know, he wants to go back to the promises of his first administration, but successfully implement them this time. You know, that essentially would be the difference between a first and a second Trump administration. You know, a second administration will have learned the lessons of the first.
Yeah, Harris's campaign messaging is really leaning into this phrase of we will not go back and that it's time to turn the page, which really is about attacking Trump more than it is about selling her own policies and vision for America. So do you think that she is offering Americans enough hope to be successful.
I think it's it's certainly true that Harris is offering a stark contrast to Donald Trump, both in policy substance, but also in the sense of the message that she's offering to Americans. Because you're right, it's not necessarily particularly detailed about the nature of that future, but the sentiment
underneath it is really important. And I think on the debate stage, you know, where we had the kind of close up visions of the two candidates, it was so incredibly clear that there are two very different versions of America that are pitted against each other in this election. Those two versions of America have existed essentially since its foundation. These are long held divisions, mostly along racial lines, that were fought out and never resolved in the Civil War.
And what you could see on the debate stage was the kind of physical embodiment of those divisions, and it's not necessarily the policy substance or the kind of granular technical policy detail underneath that that will be the deciding factor in people's minds. It matters, of course, it matters, but those it is that bigger question I think about which of the two versions of America is going to be victorious in November.
Emma, thank you so much for your time anytime, Thanks for having me. Also in the news today, Victoria police clashed with anti war protest ess outside a major defense expo in Melbourne yesterday, with police using sponge grenades and flash bang devices to control parts of the crowd. Police say over twelve hundred people attended the protest outside the venue hosting the three day event, which was showcasing weapons technology from more than eight hundred domestic and international organizations.
And the National Anti Corruption Commission announce its currently investigating six current or former politicians. The Commission said another three investigations are focused on current or former parliamentary staff, but did not specify any other details about the investigations. And Ruby Jones seven am will be back tomorrow. Thanks for listening.