There is an almost impossible problem with assessing how US President Donald Trump performs in any debate, or in any public forum really. There is simply a different rulebook — if there is a rulebook — applied to him.
So it went with the ill-tempered and rambling first presidential debate, moderated by Fox News’ Chris Wallace at a university hospital in Cleveland, Ohio.
Because of course, Trump’s reality TV nastiness, his shamelessness, his personal attacks are all kind of the point — the sense that he in some way shows up the hypocrisy and false civility of the establishment is possibly the most coherent content he has.
So while Joe Biden’s minders would have been fretting over whether he’d use archaic racial slang to describe Puerto Ricans, or call someone’s five-year-old “a real looker”, Trump would be called “presidential” or at least “uncharacteristically sedate” if he didn’t accuse Biden of being involved in the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan.
Those lowered standards work straightaway; he answers the first question (about the Supreme Court) without any demonstrable lies or slurs — and I’m impressed.
That lasts until Biden starts talking, and the two start bickering about healthcare policy. By question two, Trump won’t let Wallace finish a question (“Oh, I guess I’m not debating him, I’m debating you now, but that’s not a surprise”).
Things go off the rails at this point, and barely get back on them.
This was also our first chance to really see what Trump would do when campaigning against a man. He didn’t loom like a predatory toad over Biden’s shoulder as he did with Hillary Clinton four years ago, but he probably interrupted and taunted him more. Wallace had to literally beg him to stop. Which he did, for one question.
Can we imagine his performance tonight swing a single vote his way? Hell, if anything the debate just served to reinforce the absurdity of an undecided voter in September 2020.
Trump came into this debate with, as ever, three or four scandals — career killers for any previous president — over his head. So, just as it was four years ago, when he looked likely to lose, he appears to think his best bet is twofold: wearying personal attacks on his opponents, and conspiratorial attacks on the legitimacy of the process.
So to the personal: mostly it was his attacks on Biden’s son Hunter, accused of various shady dealing but most frequently of taking US$3.5 million from the mayor of Moscow. Trump keeps saying it, and saying it, and saying it as Biden tries to answer other questions, clearly trying to goad Biden into an embarrassing reaction. This is the one time Biden’s somnambulant performance really played in his favour, and he kept his cool.
There were all the classics for Trump watchers. Those verbal tics, sweeping statements that rely heavily on allusion (“If you see what’s happening in Virginia, it’s really terrible”) and everything he’s done is immaculate, phenomenal, the “most” something you’ve ever seen. He often talks like a child writing dialogue for a fictional president: “I talked to the scientists in charge and they say they’ll have a vaccine.”
There was the repetition of specific but baseless accusations — in this case that there would be 2 million dead of COVID-19 had Biden been president. He once again refused to condemn white supremacists (“It’s not a right-wing problem it’s a left-wing problem”).
More broadly, he wants to de-legitimse the process, once again refusing to confirm that he’d make a peaceful transfer of power (“If I see tens of thousands of ballots being interfered with it, then I don’t go along”), continually launching into rambling accusations of fraud and corruption compromising mail-in ballots.
None of which is surprising, except when you stop to think about it for a second, to take it all as a totality: Trump geeing up the violent elements of his support, telling them not accept the election result if he loses.
As part of his mail fraud rant he said something that made me slightly queasy. He said it a few times: “This is not going to end well.”
I’m not sure he is worth commenting on Charlie, it more about the inability of the moderator or any media to call out the tactics within the debate. , explain why each one is not a fair or reasonable response to debate and educate those watching in the process.
He is using the reach of commercial television to spread lies and incite violence, this is the example for children to emulate if they would like to be president.
This bloke is scary,I agree, it is only possible for such an obviously debased mind to be a success in the public arena without thoughtful and consistent objection because:-
It sells, he is basically a pawn, an end product of decades of psychoanalytical think tanks aimed at commercial success with no interest in integrity ,ethics or morality.
The majority of articles about this creep should be about how he got there and why, namely his media backers that don’t object to his lies and incitement and what they stand to gain.
The little slithers of reason and especially why this could be appealing need to be properly scrutinised and require every university and every ethical and aware person on the planet to stand up and ask for media reform.
Media and marketing strategies have overwhelmed reason in politics.
‘the debate just served to reinforce the absurdity of an undecided voter in September 2020.’ Loved this!
My two bobs worth on the nastiness and potential for conflict
I’ve spent a lot of the last 10 years working in the US, it is a wonderful country with wonderful people. I’ve never hidden my views and have had many discussions over the bar. We may not have agreed but we enjoyed the beer
Wonderful country, wonderful people?
Severely tarnished by greed, folly and selfishness these days….electing a goose like Trump is only one of their many failures as a modern society.