Will there be a presidential debate?
President Biden confirmed Friday that he may refuse to debate former President Donald Trump ahead of their anticipated election rematch.
“It depends on his behavior,” the 81-year-old Biden told reporters as he left the White House for a campaign trip to Philadelphia.
Trump, 77, said Wednesday that Biden must agree to debate him — amid suspicion that the incumbent would skip the traditional forums to deny the presumptive Republican nominee relatively unfettered TV air time.
“It is important, for the Good of our Country, that Joe Biden and I Debate Issues that are so vital to America, and the American People,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform.
“Therefore, I am calling for Debates, ANYTIME, ANYWHERE, ANYPLACE!”
It depends on his behavior feeds into the idea that Trump is some sort of out-of-control child, fuming and ranting – unlike the calm, cool, mature Biden. Those of us on the right who study Biden are scratching our heads that anyone can perceive the current president that way, but there are indeed many who do.
Democrats in general would probably rather not see a head-to-head debate for fear it would make Biden look bad. But I’m not at all sure that would be the result of a debate; it wasn’t that way in 2020, although it might have been. Biden’s handlers are more than able to give him enough preparation (including perhaps even knowing the questions in advance) and medication that his old fighting instincts will kick in as they did in 2020. Plus, he can lie in a debate and the MSM won’t call him out on it, so that’s a huge advantage.
People have perceived that Biden is extremely cognitively challenged. But every time he’s able to look at least somewhat with it and can string a bunch of coherent sentences together (even if wrong, even if angry, even if lying), he challenges that perception and allows some people who might otherwise not vote for him to relax and reassure themselves he’s okay after all.
So I’m not really sure if a debate is to Trump’s advantage, because the bar is so low for Biden and so high for Trump. But if I had to guess, I’d say there won’t be any debate – and Biden will blame it on Trump’s “behavior.”
The moderators asking questions are the problem. Always leftists
Let a pro Trump person and one Biden hater be among those asking questions
A debate probably won’t be an advantage to Trump, Biden refusing to debate would be. Trump just keeps calling for debates so he can get Biden to publicly refuse as often as possible.
Maybe my dream debate will occur:
1. Each candidate in a sound isolated booth. One microphone on at a time.
2. “Chess clock” gives each candidate equal time.
3. Two moderators (like suggested by fullmoon). My dream moderator would be the Wall Street Journal’s Kim Strassel. It doesn’t matter if a moderator is in the tank for a candidate, because everyone will know which moderator was named by which candidate.
4. Short, simple questions: (a) what would you do about the Ukraine?; (b) what’s your position on abortion?; (c) do you believe that the federal deficit is sustainable? (d) Do you have a plan for the long term solvency of Medicare?, etc.
5. Candidates can use their time wisely or unwisely–that will be part of the challenge in approaching the debate.
If one of the candidates wants to babble for 20 minutes, the other candidate will have un-rebutted time remaining. Both Trump and Biden are uncommonly rude men who prefer to interrupt and talk over people rather than listening and having an open and honest exchange of views. Biden behaves at least as badly as Trump. But the “one microphone at a time” rule will give each candidate equal time, and you’ll actually be able to hear the answers and positions (nonsensical as they may be).
Of course, I’m dreaming. Neither candidate wants to engage on the issues. We live in a country where entitlements are reaching their day of reckoning and no candidate will even acknowledge that fact of life. The $34 trillion national debt is dwarfed by well over $100 trillion of unfunded social security and medicare promises. Absent action, current law provides for benefit cuts within 10 years or so–it would be interesting to hear what the two morons think about that.
All in all, things aren’t going to end well until the U.S., like a degenerate alcoholic waking up in the drunk tank, decides it’s time to take stock and confront federal spending head on.
“But I’m not at all sure that would be the result of a debate; it wasn’t that way in 2020, although it might have been.”
Wasn’t Trump coming off a case of COVID, when they last met?
DNW:
There were 2 debates in 2020. The first was 9/29 and the second was 10/22. I think that Trump’s COVID may have affected both debates. He tested positive for COVID on October 2, and he was quite ill.
If I remember correctly, however, he said COVID didn’t affect him at the debates. But of course he would say that no matter what. I think it probably did affect him. But my point is that Biden surprised people by not messing up too badly, so he got the advantage of low expectations.
Handled properly, I could see a debate with Biden being highly favorable to Trump. Rather than respond at length to questions directed at him, calmly list all the ways Biden has demonstrated that he is unfit for the office. Pull no punches but in a calm, “he’s just not up to the job folks” way. Do this every time it is Trump’s turn to speak. Unrelenting pity and when Biden angrily reacts, respond with something like ‘see? any psychologist will confirm that the senile have little control over their anger’. ‘Folks, his advisors have to know, have to see this all the time and this is elder abuse. They’re so desperate to hold on to political power that they lack all common decency.’
Biden’s advisors will not have prepared him for this and it will throw him completely off his game and the real Joe Biden will come out to play.
Trump just needs to speak the truth in a calm, forthright manner that pulls no punches. But not punches directed at Biden. Rather at his handlers and a media that refuses to acknowledge that the current resident in the Oval Office has no clothes.
The debates in recent years have been a joke. Generally, the problem is twofold. The moderators have been biased and the questions asked have been of the “gotcha” sort. Also, candidates have been allowed to prevaricate and ramble on too often. So, in that format I don’t think they provide much new or decisive information about the candidates.
Is there anyone in the Unted States who doesn’t know quite a lot about both candidates? How many undecideds are there at this point? It’s a rematch, after all.
What matters, IMO, is trying to overcome the election fraud in the swing states – not superior debate performance.
I think it’s Biden’s old fighting instincts that they worry about. Not that he’d actually punch Trump, but I could see Trump easily winding Biden up to the point that he had a meltdown.
NorthOfTheOneOhOne (11:50 pm) imagines, “I could see Trump easily winding Biden up to the point that he had a meltdown.”
That strikes me as an excellent strategy. Bring it on!
Can’t find fault with the article, debates are a total set up gotcha anyway.
If a debate were to be held, I don’t think it would last very long…
…since the FIRST time Trump would DARE criticize Biden’s policies—any of them—he would be vehemently accused by the “moderators” of spreading “Fake News”(TM) and the thing would be shut down.
In which case…the thing will last maybe three minutes…
Or…maybe, they WOULD let the SHOW GO ON (as it “must”)…and EVERY time Trump would criticize Biden, he’d be vehemently accused of spreading “Fake News”(TM) and then let off with a SEVERE warning, so that picking up a dozen SEVERE warnings about spreading “Fake News”(TM) would have an even greater “Positive” effect for “The Faithful”(TM)…and boost the “Incumbent”.
Presidential debates are, and have been for many years, so tilted to the left that they’re an unalloyed waste of time.
That said, adding someone like Strassel to the panel of “moderators” (mentioned above) would provide some degree of balance, and Trump toning himself down to pure factual responses would be of benefit to himself. I suspect, however, that the White House’s Dr. Feelgood would be unable to keep Biden sufficiently stable and focused for a 90-minute debate, so no one on Biden’s staph (not a typo) would be willing to avdocate participation in any debate.
Since the debates have been left-wing setups for decades, they may not be important.
Biden began to visibly wind down at the end of his hour on Thursday. Ninety minutes might be more than he could do. Can any doctors here comment on whether these amphetamine doses are medically dangerous to Biden?
I’m afraid Trump is not going to have much of a leg to stand on when he demands debates with Biden, given how Trump himself refused to debate DeSantis, Haley, etc. during the primaries.
BJ (2:14 pm) is “afraid Trump is not going to have much of a leg to stand on when he demands debates with Biden, given how Trump himself refused to debate DeSantis, Haley, etc. during the primaries.”
Consistency, when and if it is actually spotted and identified, is a distinct rarity among political types vying for advantage. Encourage and nurture it, for it is all too fleeting.
Since Biden didn’t debate Williamson or Phillips either, it would be hard to make that argument.
There is the “expectation game.” George W. Bush was expected to do terribly in his debates with Al Gore. When he did passably well, he beat expectations, and in that sense “won” the debate (Gore wasn’t that great either).
Debating DeSantis, Haley and the others might have given Trump good practice for a show down with Biden. He also might have stumbled and doomed his campaign. If he did very well — better than he usually does in debates — it might have raised expectations for him in a fall debate to the point where it hurts him.
I hope there are no debates. It seems like a dead format for the Presidential contest.
The culture has changed, immensely, and so many in the media and politics refuse to recognize or adapt to the changes.
The State of the Union address? How many people watched it? How many people care? The primaries? “Super Tuesday?” How many 20, 30, 40 year old Americans care about the primaries or tuning into CNN or FoxNews to watch a panel of 8 people look at maps of counties changing colors as precincts report primary vote totals?
Remember Academy Awards Watch parties? Starting around the age of 18 I often entered Oscar betting pools with friends and often watched the Oscar broadcast, sometimes attending watch parties, even Oscar watching costume parties. The next Monday at work everyone discussed the broadcast.
The Academy Awards show is dead. The Academy just doesn’t understand this yet. Super Tuesday is dead. The Iowa Caucuses are dead. The New Hampshire “first in the nation” primary is meaningless. Dead. The CBS, NBC and ABC nightly news broadcasts are dead. “Meet the Press,” “Face the Nation?” Dead.
As others have written, who yet hasn’t formed an opinion on Donald Trump and Joe Biden? Who hasn’t yet formed an opinion on the GOP and DNC? All the above formats would be dying no matter who was running this season, but especially with these two, no one has any need to participate in watching any of this stuff; state of the union addresses, debates, primary results. A lot of us older people are doing this out of some sense of duty or tradition, but honestly, do any of us care? Are any of us going to change our opinion of the DNC or GOP or any of the candidates based on any of this?
Well, now the pictures are so small they fit on a screen we all carry in our purses or pockets and we don’t have to wait to see which 90 minute feature one of three studios will transmit to us every week or two. Every drama ever filmed is available instantly and hundreds more roll out each second; some in 15 second clips.
The narrative cannot be controlled from a few studio executives in collusion with Washington D.C. and Wall Street. Even if they hold a debate with their handpicked moderators it won’t matter, because nobody is watching.
From the Washington Post:
That translates to 6 million viewers between ages 35 and 54 and 1,600,000 between ages 18 and 34. There are about 84 million Americans in that first group and about 67 million in the second group. So 7% of 35 – 54 year olds watched the President’s State of the Union Address and 2% of 18 – 34 year olds watched.
For those of you 55 or older, think back to when you were 35, 40 years old. Watching a State of the Union address was almost mandatory. It could come up in meetings at work, meetings with clients, conversations with the ladies in one’s bridge club, at the hairdressers. Even if you weren’t interested you almost had to watch it to maneuver in career and social situations. 7% of 35 – 54 year olds watched!
It’s dead.
(Stating the reciprocals of the above makes it even more obvious. 93% of 35 – 54 year olds and 98% of 18 – 34 year olds DID NOT watch the State of the Union Address.
The regime continues with the pomp and circumstance and CNN and Fox continue with the 7 person panels sitting at desks with “Breaking News!!” on reactions and polling, but it’s all kabuki. A farce. None of it drives voting patterns or policy.
“I am Oz, the great and powerful!”
“My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings; Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!”
Re. Bush v Gore, Gore’s histrionics at the first debate turned off many voters and may have been his worst moment in the entire campaign and cost him enough votes to lose the election. Even now I recall him getting into Bush’s space and making ridiculous exaggerated facial expressions and exacerbated sighs. Kinda made it hard not to hate him.
But, not to worry; after going through his Blue period he emerged to become a billionaire off the global warming hype.
@M J R:
LOL! Very well put!
M J R, beautiful response.
I bet I haven’t watch more than two or three SOTU speech’s in my life. I have never been that interested in what these assholes have to say. I care about what they do. If I had watched, it would have been with the hope to see that vile POS have a stroke and drop dead on live TV.