On the evening of September 10th, 2024, Kamala Harris and Donald Trump went head-to-head for 90 minutes in their first-ever in-person meeting. Being in the U.S., I could not miss the opportunity to follow this historic show alongside a group of politically engaged Americans. Certain “buzzwords” were predictable. We all knew it was a matter of time before Trump would call Harris a Marxist, just as we were pretty certain Harris would not miss the opportunity to evoke the capitol insurrection. Hence, to liven up what was promised to be 90 minutes of pure political comedy, we armed ourselves with pens and papers to play the “Presidential Bingo Game”.  

The rules of the game are simple. Presidential Bingo is based on the classic bingo rules but adds a presidential touch. Instead of numbers, each box in the bingo framework features a political cliché or an expected line. As seen below, ours included, among others, “Fake News”, “Elon Musk”, and “Coach Walz”. Each time one of these statements is brought up, we cross off a square. Get five squares in a row - either vertically, horizontally, or diagonally - and bingo! 

Checkboxes from the debate

“Project 2025” 

It only took a couple of minutes after the debate started before we could mark off the “Project 2025” square. Trump found himself defending his association with the controversial 900-page policy blueprint. Organized by the Heritage Foundation, this plan advocates, among other conservative goals, stricter controls on immigration, eliminating the Department of Education, and slashing climate protections. Trump insisted he had “nothing to do” with it, though a CNN review found out that 140 people working with Trump were involved in the plan. 

“January 6th” 

Not long after, Harris brought up the “January 6th” attack on the Capitol, which she called “the worst attack” on democracy since the Civil War. Trump sought to dissociate himself from the insurrection, falsely accusing Nancy Pelosi, former speaker of the house, of insufficient security of the Capitol. Nevertheless, as David Jackson pointed out, Trump’s use of the pronoun “we” while describing the Capitol events may have undermined his overall argument. 

“Trump calls Kamala a socialist or communist” 

I was almost surprised to cross out this square so late in the debate. After calling Harris a “Marxist”, and her father a “Marxist professor in economics”, Trump took it a step further, adding that “she plans to confiscate guns”. While their programs differ on weapon control, Kamala hastened to affirm that both she and her vice president and herself are, in fact, gun owners. We are in America after all?

“Roe v Wade is brought up”

Unsurprisingly, the two candidates launched into a lengthy discussion over abortion. Amid the heated exchange, here are some key takeaways: Trump pitched himself as “the leader of IVF”, and avoided answering twice when asked if he would veto a federal abortion ban if it were passed by Congress. And, to top it off, he accused the Democrats of supporting “execution after birth”. Yet, as ABC News moderator Linsey Davis pointed out, this is homicide and illegal in every State.

“Border Czar” 

Donald Trump called Kamala Harris “Border Czar” three times, a name commonly used by Republicans to blame Harris’s position in managing the country’s immigration policy and for increased migration to the US, especially through the Mexican border. The White House underlined that contrary to what the term “border czar” suggests, Kamala Harris has never been assigned border security in its entirety. Indeed, border security and management are the Secretary of Homeland Security’s responsibility. Instead, Biden tasked Harris in 2021 with diplomatic tasks to address the “root causes” of immigration in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. While there is no “border czar” position, immigration advocates have frequently criticized Kamala Harris, notably for her 2021 remarks, where she advised would-be migrants in Guatemala, “Do not come”.

And now?  

Overall, watching this debate felt more like watching a live-action ping pong match, with personal attacks, surface-level facts, and fake news flying back and forth - all in a desperate hope to seduce the widest audience. After all, this is precisely what this Presidential Bingo Game satirizes: in these debates, rhetoric is strategically crafted to overpower the opponent in an entertaining and performative way, making certain “buzzwords” predictable and memorable. This dynamic aligns with the growing “personalisation of politics” in Western democracies, where voters are often swayed more by charm, emotional appeal and political identity than by the actual candidate’s program. As a result, political debates have been reduced to performative spectacle, rather than serving as a legitimate tool for informing and promoting meaningful policy discussion. 

Yet, what are the future implications of this debate? Will this debate change the race’s dynamic and impact the votes poll? With polls razor-thin in key swing states, and the last Biden-Trump debate, both candidates had high stakes going into this debate. Kamala Harris, joining late in the race, had to introduce herself  better and win over undecided voters, while Donald Trump aimed to maintain his stance. Still, most international and European outlets, including the Washington Post and Politico, were consistent in giving Harris an advantage in the debate. Even Fox News voter panels acknowledged Kamala’s “victory”, pointing out Trump's failure to convincingly respond to Kamala Haris’s clashes. However, this is unlikely to change Trump's voters' opinion, as conservative press and social media have claimed the journalists of ABC News were biased and the debate unfair.

Given that a Newsweek study found out that one-third of people between 18 and 25 years old would be more likely to support a candidate endorsed by Taylor Swift, I believe that Taylor Swift's endorsement of Kamala Harris after the debate might potentially influence the polls even more significantly than anything else discussed on this Tuesday evening.  

The upcoming weeks will tell us more!

The opinions expressed within this article are solely the author’s and are not affiliated with either the Maastricht Diplomat or UNSA.