I may try to look for data on this, but my WAG is that low information voters are pretty unlikely to have watched a debate this early on. I suspect that if they watch anything it is the acceptance speech at the convention and the last debate.
Of course Biden may be as doddering going forward too. No way for us to know.
So can’t tell who were the watchers but apparently there were not so many of them:
So all the Rs will vote down Biden and all the Ds will vote down Trump. What does that prove. How about we let the supposed leader of the free world stick up for himself? I don’t care what pundits, experts, moderators say. I want to hear from the candidates and the candidates alone. If one or both refuse to answer the question then that’s an answer. I don’t want Jake Tapper fighting Biden’s battles
Sure. In theory.
The concern I always have is that a candidate from whom you’d really like to hear – somebody whose policy prescriptions you feel are important – but who is up against a Donald Trump simply cannot do both. They can’t inform you and defuse the interminable incoming they’d surely receive.
The clock’s a-ticking.
It’s the Gish Gallop incarnate. Trump, his lackeys, and pretty much the whole of RW media does precious little besides train a fire hose of bullshit on everybody in every direction.
As Reagan said, “If you’re explaining, you’re losing.”
Or … “If you’re not on offense, you’re on defense.”
Even if Biden had all the answers right at hand, the task of fact-checking Trump in real-time would be, IMHO, all-consuming.
How does he walk away from that encounter with anything even remotely resembling a win?
I don’t know that it would necessarily break down that cleanly along party lines. That’s really where voir dire comes in. The people who would serve as subject matter experts might have political proclivities, but it wouldn’t be a job for partisans.
It would be a job for people with training, experience, and qualifications to fill the role.
[Sounds like a job for The Deep State <grin>]
Much as we tend to hear how seriously juries take that solemn duty, I assume it’s possible to find willing, capable people who are committed to the cause, and can readily put country before party.
This kept him from bullying Biden with interruptions.
I read about 60m people watched the debate, but maybe not all were American.
However, Biden’s pauses will be replayed in Republican fundraising until the election. The Economist and some Democrats are talking louder about other candidates when they need to either unify, or agree exceedingly quickly.
Again, Biden’s points were not as bad as his mildly dyspeptic appearance when Trump was talking. The worst thing might have been the “Democratic Operative says Biden must go” banner perpetually on screen after the debate. If it was true, this person is a moron for saying this to CNN directly after the debate.
I hope Biden wins for many reasons, not least recent Supreme decisions. However, if he does not have a 50% chance, should he run, if the goal is anyone but Trump?
(Giftlink: Economist - Biden should step down)
https://econ.st/3XKQDca
(Excerpt:)
In November 2022 The Economist said that, after a lifetime of public service, Joe Biden should not seek re-election as president. In January this year we put our concerns on the cover. But even those worried about his age were not prepared for Thursday’s debate against Donald Trump. Over 90 agonising minutes, Mr Biden was befuddled and incoherent—too infirm, frankly, to cope with another four years in the world’s hardest job.
Mr Biden says he is standing again to help ordinary Americans and to save democracy from Mr Trump’s vengeful demagoguery. And the former president’s scowling, evasive and truth-defying appearance on the debate stage did nothing to diminish the urgency of those two aims. Yet if Mr Biden really cares about his mission, then his last and greatest public service should be to stand aside for another Democratic nominee.
Play it out for me. Biden steps down. Releases his delegates. Who wins? Does the open battle drive enthusiasm or leave resentment?
I’d go with Harris but some think she’d be a weak candidate. Skip over her though and you alienate some Black and women voters. Is this more likely to get a win than hoping Biden gets his shit together and gets that energetic version out front?
The New York Times editorial board just called for him to withdraw from the race [anyone have a gift link?]
At Thursday’s debate, the president needed to convince the American public that he was equal to the formidable demands of the office he is seeking to hold for another term. Voters, however, cannot be expected to ignore what was instead plain to see: Mr. Biden is not the man he was four years ago.
The president appeared on Thursday night as the shadow of a great public servant. He struggled to explain what he would accomplish in a second term. He struggled to respond to Mr. Trump’s provocations. He struggled to hold Mr. Trump accountable for his lies, his failures and his chilling plans. More than once, he struggled to make it to the end of a sentence.
I seem to recall some strong performances by her in the 2020 primaries. She was my favorite then. Half the reason I was so enthusiastic for Biden to win (besides showing tRump the door) was she was his running mate.
That’s nice. Barack Obama called for him to stay in. I know who I trust more.
obviously Joe opened the door wiiiiiide for any future “Joe Biden suffers from advanced dementia” jabs from the Trump team.
so I guess we will see that angle being pushed even more over the next few months.
another sidenote:
I am surprised how “helpless” Biden seemed vs. the Trump steamroller-lies-express
I’ve never said he has dementia but that was a “look, something shiny” moment that required someone to get him back on track. I remember when he was a Senator and the difference is considerable.
I came across a YouTube video today of a couple reactors I’ve seen before watching and discussing the debate as it went along. They are young men probably in their late 20s, early 30s. They admitted that they don’t follow politics at all and had never seen either man make a speech. One of the first things they said about Biden was that he didn’t completely answer some questions and can be vague. They didn’t seem to notice that Trump never answered questions but just went into talking points about other things. Some of which they “had heard stuff about” (babies being killed after birth and immigrants living in luxury hotels). Since they had heard about those things, they were probably true.
When Biden talked about Trump calling soldiers suckers and losers and he denied it, they said you can’t really know if he said that and why would he - that would be a stupid thing for a president to say. I quit watching at that point. They were absolutely unaware of any of Biden’s accomplishments or that Trump is a lying liar who lies. And they were falling for the lies. I hope they do some research on their own but this could be the only thing they base their vote on. That’s horrifying.
Do make up your mind.
I agree. I’m just pointing out that “showing signs of age” and “a shambling, absent wreck” are not the same thing.
Oh look - you’re doing it again. Yes, he’s slower in thought and action. But your “look, something shiny” spin is entirely subjective.
The Economist also.
Pretty sad times. I know some here will paint me as a hater or whatever, but we’re in deep shit here. Yeah, he probably should stand down.
But the obvious alternative is Harris–and she has polled weaker against Trump than Biden [because of racism, sexism, and being too liberal].
Not that we could ever be so lucky, but posing the hypothetical that in a couple of weeks, Trump gets sentenced to a year in prison - does President Biden then step aside, or does he press forward?
(Please note I’m not looking to litigate the range of possible punishments to come in the July 11th sentencing - plenty of other threads for that - just curious how “married to the idea of re-election” you think President Biden is).
Agreeing to a “no notes” rule was a bad decision – having notes doesn’t particularly benefit Trump, who just pulls stuff out of his fat ass, but it is quite beneficial to someone who actually intends to make fact-based arguments.
The team that prepared Biden for the debate seem to have made many basic errors, and been so eager for the debate that they did not negotiate reasonable conditions for their candidate.
My goodness, yes. Did NO ONE suggest to him that actually looking into the camera–communicating with the American people–might be a good idea?
Did someone suggest it, and he replied 'no, I feel it’s important to look into the eyes of the person who asked me the question and nowhere else’—?? If so, shouldn’t someone have said ‘this is about letting the American people know where you stand–shouldn’t you address them directly?’
Such a basic rule of communication. And they couldn’t make it happen.