For the Curious Among You, Here Is Attached a Summary and One Or Two Reactions to Today's Debate

Dear all, > for the curious among you, here is attached a summary and one or two reactions to today's debate. > And a very useful and clear recap on who stands where on key issues. Let me know if you can't open the page, but normally you're entitled to several free articles: https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2020/trump-policies-vs-biden-policies/ > The New York Times fact-checked the candidates' sweeping statements https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/09/29/us/debate-fact- check?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage > But so did Breitbart News. It is worth taking a look at tome of the articles here: https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2020/09/29/joe-biden-ditches-bernie-bros-debate-denounces- medicare-for-all-defund-police-green-new-deal/ > If you want the short version, here it is: https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000007368667/presidential-debate- highlights.html?action=click&gtype=vhs&version=vhs-heading&module=vhs&region=title- area&cview=true&t=172 or HERE https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/wallace-struggles-to-stop-trumps-repeated- interruptions/2020/09/29/f0d7fb0b-a83a-4364-a151-4f5d152eee9a_video.html Or in this short text: Politics Analysis Trump’s baffling debate strategy was to tweet out loud for 90 minutes The president decided to counter substance with bluster — admittedly more favorable territory for him The Washington Post, Sept 30 President Trump is trailing former vice president Joe Biden by 10 points, according to a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll. The Post’s average of national polls has Biden leading by eight points. In swing states, Biden has consistent leads, more than enough to win both the popular and electoral votes in November. The first debate, held Tuesday, was one of the few remaining chances for Trump to redirect the race. It was an opportunity for him to shift public perceptions of what his presidency has accomplished and to present Biden as a less desirable alternative. It would not be easy, given the deficit he faced coming into the evening, but it was at least theoretically possible. What Trump did instead was something quite different. Instead of engaging with Biden in good faith, his approach was quite simply to bluster and bully his way through every discussion. Rather than let Biden offer a thought and respond to it on the merits, Trump decided not to let Biden offer any thoughts in the first place. At first, he was clearly trying to fluster Biden, probably in an effort to reinforce his long-standing, baseless assertion that Biden is suffering from mental decline. And for a while, it worked: Biden, clearly expecting an actual debate, was forced to adjust. But soon, he adjusted, at times letting his frustration with Trump’s flailing punches seep through, as when he flatly suggested that the president “shut up.” But Trump’s strategy didn’t change. On question after question, he tried to pester Biden so he couldn’t offer any coherent answer — not because Biden had any deficiency but simply because no one could, any more than one could have an elegant tea party in the middle of a dodgeball game. Trump attacked moderator Chris Wallace as readily as he did Biden, taking advantage of Wallace’s stated preference for sitting back and letting the two candidates take on one another. It was a fundamental mistake on Wallace’s part, and he should have expected the results: Trump was never going to debate Biden on policy in a traditional sense. But really, it would have been hard to predict the extent to which Trump threw out the idea that a sincere debate should even be an option. Commentators were not impressed with the debate, and some say they’ve seen enough. People in Atlanta watched the first presidential debate at a drive-in watch party. Credit...Lynsey Weatherspoon for The New York Times The country has never seen a debate like the one it saw Tuesday night. From the shouting and interruptions — mostly from President Trump — that made it almost unintelligible at times, to Mr. Trump’s call-out to the Proud Boys, here is what some political commentators thought. By far the most discussed moment was the one in which President Trump refused to condemn white supremacists. “The refusal of the President of the United States to denounce white supremacists on nationwide TV when asked to do so directly, launches us into a new and very, very ominous place.” — Sherrilyn Ifill, president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, on Twitter “He wouldn’t say he condemned white supremacy. He wouldn’t say he condemned white supremacy. He wouldn’t say he condemned white supremacy. He wouldn’t say he condemned white supremacy. He wouldn’t say he condemned white supremacy.” — Amanda Renteria, board member of Emerge America, which supports Democratic women, and former national political director for Hillary Clinton, on Twitter In an extraordinary remark on CNN, former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania blamed the moderator, Chris Wallace, for Mr. Trump’s call-out to the Proud Boys. “He was asking the president to do something that he knows the president doesn’t like to do, which is say something bad about people who support him.” — Rick Santorum, who subsequently acknowledged that he was referring to white supremacists More broadly, commentators remarked on the aggression of Mr. Trump’s approach. “Not only was this Trump engaging in spectacle. This was spectacle on steroids. It was a clear display of aggressive masculinity meant to mobilize and appeal to white male voters.” — Anna Sampaio, professor of ethnic studies and political science at Santa Clara University, on Twitter “Trump was also nasty and crazy towards Hillary in the 2016 debates, but he had a discernible message — on being an outsider, on immigration, on corruption. There was absolutely no argument from Trump tonight, just arguing.” — Jon Favreau, a former speechwriter for President Barack Obama, on Twitter Many expressed disgust at the chaos of the debate, and there were some calls for Mr. Biden to refuse to participate in subsequent ones. (His campaign rejected those calls.) “A hot mess inside a train wreck inside a dumpster fire.” — Jake Tapper, a CNN host “As a political matter Biden did fine, and Trump hurt himself. But for the sake of the country Biden should consider refusing to do any more such ‘debates.’ Biden can do weekly town halls, including Trump supporters. But he shouldn’t dignify Trump by being on stage with him again.” — Bill Kristol, editor at large of The Bulwark and “Never Trump” conservative, on Twitter “We need to hear tomorrow from the Presidential Commission on Debates. They must outline a plan for how this is going to work going forward including cutting off mics for interrupting. 2020 is far too important to have two more episodes of that. Because that was not a debate.” — Robert Gibbs, former White House press secretary for President Barack Obama, on Twitter Few thought the debate would change the race substantially. “Trump is behind & needed it more. conservative media will make use of some Biden speech patterns. But Trump bullying was obvious & confirmed by Wallace. Biden mobilization message could also cause instant ballot requests/returns.” — Matt Grossmann, director of the Institute for Public Policy and Social Research at Michigan State University, on Twitter Mr. Trump, interrupting throughout the debate, appeared aggressive and assertive, at one point challenging Mr. Biden to name law enforcement groups that had endorsed his campaign. The president also claimed that antifa would overthrow Mr. Biden. “It’s hard to get a word in with this clown,” Mr. Biden said. The president’s performance is likely to please members of his base, who saw the entertaining, loudmouth fighter onstage whom they come out to see at rallies in the middle of a pandemic. But it was not clear that he had changed the tenor of the campaign, or made any sort of appeal to voters who are still persuadable. Mr. Biden also didn’t appear overly rattled, and took opportunities to point out that the country has become “weaker, sicker” and “more divided” under Mr. Trump’s leadership. “Will you shut up, man?” Mr. Biden said at one point, channeling, perhaps, the voice of a tired nation that has been tuned into the Trump show daily for four years. At another point, Mr. Biden called his opponent racist and “Putin’s puppy.” But he managed to look interested in issues, rather than a slapfest. “I’d like to talk about climate change,” the moderator, Chris Wallace, said, cutting off a discussion about Hunter Biden. “So would I,” Mr. Biden said. Low blows in Ohio A dismal presidential debate will leave voters unimpressed Donald Trump and Joe Biden brawled. Neither landed a knockout punch The Economist, Sep 30th 2020 NEITHER JOE BIDEN nor President Donald Trump is known for his oratory. But one might still have expected them to manage a few coherent sentences during their first presidential debate ahead of the election in November. Yet rather than an exercise in deliberative democracy, it was the least dignified and most dispiriting debate of the modern era of American politics—a snarling, shouty, excruciating affair, marred by Mr Trump’s verbal incontinence. Perhaps voters should not have expected conventional civility, given Mr Trump’s intemperance. He has been consumed by the continuing disorder of a half-managed pandemic, the hectic rush of Republicans to confirm a new justice to the Supreme Court, and the recent revelations, published in the New York Times, that the president had paid laughably little in tax in many years despite his pretences to moguldom.

Load more