YIKES!!!

What an exchange of ideas!!!

The first Presidential Debate was hosted by CNN, outside the reach of the Commission on Presidential Debates, at 9pm EDT on Thursday, June 27th. The spectacle was held without a live audience - just four individuals in a large sterile room at the CNN studios in Georgia, a cold empty ice cavern modernized with assorted screens and with a stage for the candidates tagged with seemingly innumerable CNN logos, two icy podiums with their own red logos, and a desk for the hosts, also apparently constructed from ice and with three CNN coffee mugs on top, presumably filled with warm liquids to attempt to keep the cold at bay. Yes, just the current President, the former President, and two somber and serious CNN hosts in a cold cavern of ice and red CNN logos.

I had been looking forward to the event immensely. I mean, the spectacle! The rarity! The absurdity! We were to have two Presidents in a Presidential debate for the first time in history. The first debate outside of the safe guiding hands of the Commission on Presidential Debates since its inception in 1987. And, overshadowing all else, the characters - Joseph Robinette Biden, teetering and tottering, and Donald John Trump, kicking and screaming. This is the type of fight card a true fan of the sport pines for. This is the showdown that brings in the viewers. This is the Roman fucking Colosseum.  

A few questions dominated the run up to the debate - how will Joe Biden fare? Will he be able to perform for that length of time? Will he stumble and fall on his face, literally or figuratively? Will Donald Trump be able to dominate the room as he prefers to? How will he fare with his microphone being turned off between answers and rebuttals, unable to interject freely? And, perhaps this last bit was more on my mind personally, how will CNN moderate the debate? Will they assert themselves heavily in a Washington Post-esque “Democracy Dies in Darkness” fashion? Oh, the questions!

Well, let’s just cut to the chase - Joe Biden did not do well. “Will he be able to reassure voters that his age is not an issue?” No, no he will not. Biden presented and performed like all the rumors about his declining mental capacity are true. He stumbled and he fumbled, losing complete track of his train of thought multiple times, and more frequently he simply slid down the wrong course, making a weak point or a jumbled incoherent point, things that, at best, didn’t resonate with anyone and certainly didn’t inspire confidence, or any depth of feeling really, besides perhaps a slightly aghast, “Oh, God.” He cited statistics at odd times when the numbers felt like they were getting in the way of the larger point; he didn’t cite statistics when it seemed the numbers may serve better than trying to make a broader point. He would begin to trail off and then pivot, but the pivot would come up against another wall, or just another shadowy path into the fuzzy brush, still away from the main trail those attempting to follow him were hoping for.

He stared into the void with his mouth open, seemingly seeing past the cameras into the Great Beyond, any chance at passing off the 1,000-yard stare as a look of steely determination totally destroyed by the mouth agape. One must have their jaw set to appear convincingly determined, surely. Yes, it wasn’t all horrific, and he had moments of attack and rebuttal that were adequate, but when you’re running for reelection as President of the United States of America, it’s going to be hard for the public to forget a segment with a finishing line like, “We finally beat Medicare.” Oooof.

Not great. Look, it’s true that Biden has a stutter and this has always impacted his speech delivery. And that surely played a part in this debate debacle. It’s also true that everyone has ups and downs, and that there is an entire Administration behind him, and this Administration has certainly got a number of things done, including the more mundane victories that do not whip up inspired fervor in the populace but are of actual considerable consequence. Yes, there is truth to all of these things, and so these are the lines of thinking that Biden’s supporters will cling to in the coming weeks. However, there is also stark reality - the President is both a leader and a figurehead, and people want that position filled by somebody who presents well, who inspires confidence, who can address the Nation and the World at Large and make us all feel… good. Like we’re in good hands. Capable hands. Biden’s debate performance inspired feelings to the opposite, a la, we’re doomed.

There is also much to say about the Democratic Party’s, and in this I include donors, pundits, and affiliated journalists, response to the dismal performance. I also find their response lends much to say about how we all ended up here, with an 81-year-old man floundering at the podium. Much to say about incompetency, poor planning, and arrogance. But I think we will save this for a follow up piece and instead digest the rest of the debate now.

Donald Trump is a live performer. He excels on a stage in front of a crowd, yelling, riffing, exaggerating and playing it all up for a friendly audience, a perfect outlet for a fun combination of the safe greatest hits with room for a bit of experimentation on new tracks. For this program, Donald Trump found himself with three other people in a large empty cavern of ice and CNN logos. There was no live audience to play to and play off of. This, along with the interim muting of the microphones of course, created a more subdued version of the man. We still had quintessentially on brand moments such as, “We had H2O,” presented as a profound statement during a total side step of the issue of climate change, and trademark zingers like, “I don’t know what he said at the end of that sentence; I don’t think he does either,” in response to one of Biden’s dissipating sentences. A bit of fun, sure, but we did not have Trump at his most domineering.

Interestingly, I think this was partially a result of the negotiated debate terms, surely argued for by the Biden Campaign, and I think in the end this result actually backfired for Biden. The loudest most freewheeling version of Donald Trump certainly plays well to a friendly crowd, but to those people uncommitted and in the non-aligned media, it often creates a buzz of negative sentiment. This version of Trump is likely to careen into dangerous territory for the moderate voter and to create a flurry of headlines intent on correcting some obscene falsehood, whether or not it was spoken in jest. These matters then dominate a large portion of the airwaves in the immediate aftermath.

So, by subduing this version of Trump to a large extent, the airwaves were kept open for other matters. I’m sure the Biden Administration’s goal was to keep them open for Biden, particularly during the debate, but also in the post-debate news cycle. Remove the loud noises and allow the voice of clarity to speak! Well, as previously discussed, Biden floundered. So, counterintuitively, by not allowing Trump to dominate the headlines in the usual way, it was just that much easier for Biden’s failure to become the main story. The gamble did not pay off. Trump was prevented from digging his own grave and the shovel was passed to Biden.

Now, as for the moderators: Dana Bash was prudent enough to dress for the occasion, wearing the all white special ice garment, which we all know greatly increases cold resistance by several points. Jake Tapper was not so wise, hence, assumedly, the need for TWO cold resistance drinks to be present on his side of the ice desk. A strange oversight for someone playing on their home field.

But really, other than the excruciatingly abundant high-visibility branding, CNN really did not exert their will over the debate to any large extent. The moderators essentially just… moderated. They enforced the rules of the debate, for the most part, and kept the exchanges moving. They did not interject or try to make their own rebuttals to the candidates’ claims.

Now, I’ve seen some criticism of this approach in the ether: no live fact-checking? No pushing back on blatant lies? And this is a matter of personal opinion, but I was glad not to see it. In my mind, the role of the moderators and the news anchors is to facilitate the debate, to keep the rules enforced and so the guard rails up, meaning it can move along appropriately and without unnecessary interruptions and digressions causing it to devolve into a petty shouting match, or something similar. They are not supposed to be part of the debate, and it is not their role to tell the voters what to think about the candidates’ statements. That is for the voters to decide on their own. Yes, a bit of prodding when a candidate totally sidesteps a question and leaves excess time on the table, but no attempt at moral grandstanding or terse badgering to get them to properly address an issue.

In my mind, if a candidate is unwilling or unable to respond to a reasonable question, that is a mark against them. And in my mind, I do not want CNN hosts, or anybody in any similar position, to think it is their job to tell me which parts of a candidate’s response are lies. I will gladly discern that for myself, and when a candidate is disingenuous, I will hold it against them, quite personally. This is not an appearance on a cable news show where it’s arguable the personality of the host has a valid role. This is a Presidential Debate. Let the candidates speak, and let the voters sort through their statements and make up their minds accordingly.

“But what about people who aren’t willing to do that!” What about them? That’s their prerogative, whether or not I agree with it on a personal level, and perhaps more so, do you really think a media host who someone likely already feels animosity toward will be the one to break through to them? Here’s a hot take, as an example of my mentality on this topic: if you truly believe that Democrats support killing babies after they’re born, you’re a fucking idiot. But if you think that Jake Tapper butting in and shouting, “That’s not true!!!!” after Donald Trump makes the claim is going to change anyone’s mind on the issue, you’re also a fucking idiot. It is each candidate’s job to counter the other in a meaningful way that resonates with voters. That’s what a debate is supposed to be. There was not much of that on display in the big empty CNN-branded ice cavern. But I don’t think it’s right or useful for the moderators to attempt to fill that vacuum.

Now perhaps this is a good segue to my final point, and really my more overarching take on the whole spectacle. Succinctly, it’s something along the lines of - FUUUUUCCCKKKKKKKKK!!!! But we shall elaborate.

There was no spirited exchange of ideas that a voter could listen to and make decisions based on. And more so, this very notion feels laughable at this point in time - we don’t even expect it anymore. The whole thing’s long been a quest for sound bites, for getting the upper hand in a testy exchange, for a slam to be remembered. And the overarching format of the debates lends itself to that.

How about policy? How about real steps that could be taken to create a program that will improve people’s lives, or solve an issue? Things that can actually be done. What are we going to do about the soaring national debt, about keeping Social Security and Medicare solvent, about the ongoing and impending increase in constancy and severity of natural disasters? Anyone? ANYTHING???

Instead we get bragging; we get insults; we get a farcical battle of fragile egos. Well, fuck an ego. This is supposed to be an exchange, or even a contest, of ideas and viewpoints and, sure, personalities to bolster the democratic process to elect the leader of our government. We the People are in fact supposed to benefit from all of this. Instead we watch increasingly detached elites bicker amongst themselves and about things that have less and less to do with the life of an average person.

One of my favorite exchanges came during the issue of drug overdoses. Both candidates ignored the issue of addiction and giddily pivoted to border security, to STOPPING THE DRUGS FROM COMING IN. Donald Trump proudly mentioned some kind of “certain dog that’s the most incredible thing you’ve ever seen” that would stop the fentanyl. Joe Biden harped on BIG MACHINES that will “roll over everything” and stop the flow of drugs! Neither gave further explanation of either of these things. Not one of us knows what they’re talking about. Is this not objectively absurd?

“What will you all do to address the addiction crisis in America?” NUMBER 1: Fuck addiction; we’ll stop the drugs!! “OK, HOW?” NUMBER 2: CERTAIN DOGS AND/OR BIG MACHINES!!! This is what we get. Take a complex multi-faceted issue; boil it down to one disingenuous black and white problem; even once that’s done, don’t offer a real solution to that problem; draw attention to shiny object “solution.” Why doesn’t anything ever get done? Hard to say, isn’t it?

Another pinnacle moment came in the already oft-covered golf exchange. This moment was a caricature of our aloof detached leaders, hitting the links for a rich man’s sport while the world burns, cartoonish monopoly men with cigars and champagne glasses jesting with each other while the huddled masses fester like wretched refuse outside the security fence. Trump brought up his golf game in the same vein as passing cognitive tests to show his mental and physical acuity in old age; he said Biden challenged him to a golf match; Biden responded… you know what? I kind of don’t fucking care.

Anyways, while there’s plenty more fodder throughout this thing, but we’ll wrap it up with a look at the closing remarks. The closing remarks stood out to me because they were wildly ineffective, from both candidates. Abject failure in arguably the most important moment. I mean, come on - it’s the time to shine! No need for statistics or bibliographies, and really no need even for concrete arguments at this point. My earlier criticisms aren’t valid in this section. It’s time for the emotional appeal! The restraints are off! “Why you, Sir Candidate?” What do you want people to take away from all this? ONE LAST CHANCE TO SELL IT!

Biden remained true to form - stumble, jumble, mumble. I have to think his intended delivery was a carefully curated Administration message - the economics. Bidenomics! Mention taxes, mention inflation… then he began to stumble painfully through a convoluted message on reducing drug prices for seniors (and honorable mention to eventually everybody). I mean, damn… it almost feels cruel after that performance, but the delivery was MANGLED. He tossed in a random mention of lead pipes and wrapped it up. The whole thing felt like a series of dead note cards that had been half memorized, absolutely botched on delivery, and left totally devoid of emotion or inspiration. There was just nothing there. Absolutely lifeless delivery. One last whisper into the cold echoey cavern.

Trump seemed to prematurely deliver his closing remarks a few minutes earlier when he said he wished Biden was a good President so he didn’t have to be there; Biden will take us into World War III, etc. etc. When the actual time came, it seemed he had used up the better of his broad strokes, and he instead launched into odd very non-detailed and unrelated specifics - Iran, Israel, Ukraine, space age materials, signing a document they’ve been trying to get for 42 years, choice for our soldiers… what? What does any of it mean? Sure, he hit the underlying points a few times; Joe Biden has done nothing; Trump did a lot; he’ll do a lot again. But it was disjointed, and not even in the oft high energy way that he presents it. Basically, Trump said, “There’s a whole lot of this and that going on, which I’ll stop, and I’ll bring back a whole lot of this and that!” No cohesion. No coherence. One last shout into the cold echoey cavern.

And that about sums it up. Biden floundered and flopped - certainly the more consequential performance. If he inspired anything amongst his supporters it was pity and perhaps panic. Trump delivered a more subdued version of his usual string of hyperbolic statements and brags. Nothing of note, but adequate for his supporters. Almost nothing of real meaning was said by either candidate. Red CNN logos and icy cold white and blue; a big lonely cavern filled with cold air and disappointment. The Nation hangs its head and the World shudders. Good night, America. The Great Contest continues.