Huffington Post labeled it “the debate from hell” and pundits across the political spectrum called it a “disaster” for Biden, because he lacked energy and stamina, repeatedly lost his train of thought, and his voice was hoarse and raspy.
The White House claimed he’s battling a cold; a bad cold can flatten anyone. An energetic campaign appearance gave that explanation credence (see story here).
This debate doesn’t add anything new to the “too old” argument against Biden running again. He didn’t stumble onstage, attacked Trump with lucid policy arguments, and got angry when Trump’s jibes called for it, but it was controlled anger and Biden was always in self-control.
In any case, Biden’s fumbled debate performance doesn’t make him a bad candidate, or make Trump a better candidate. It doesn’t really change the dynamic between them. Trump had a terrible debate, too, consisting of nonstop exaggerating, lying, denying, and ranting; he evaded the most challenging questions and had poor self-control. His angry, bombastic, and fact-free tirades were awful as always. His clumsy efforts to defuse his own incendiary rhetoric fell flat. After last night’s debate, Trump is no more attractive a candidate than he ever was.
Biden has been better in other debates. You could argue that, at worst, he was off his game this time. On his better days, he can make Trump look like a fool in a debate. He did so in 2020, and may do so again, if there’s another debate. Democrats hoped he would do that in this debate, and panicked when he had an off-night; the Politico headline blared, “Democrats consider the unthinkable: It’s time for Biden to go.”
But should they be nervous? The negative impact of this debate is buffered by the fact few people watched it (see story here); most of the noise is from the media. Biden’s recent job performance doesn’t show he’s aging out of the job. He was highly coherent in a recent Time magazine interview (read my posting here). The election is still months away, giving him ample time to put this debate behind him; if he’s is strong on the campaign trail, at the convention, in the September debate, and — most important of all — at carrying out his presidential duties, it will be forgotten.
In the hours after the debate, Biden’s campaign team stood firm, arguing Trump “gave voters no reason to vote for him,” calling for calm, and hoping Biden can put an early bad performance behind him.
Is a poor debate performance even relevant? Debating skill isn’t everything. A third-rate debater can be a first-rate president. Biden is at least a successful president. In his first term, he rescued and strengthened alliances that Trump neglected, stymied Putin in Ukraine without sending U.S. troops, and got a badly-needed infrastructure bill through Congress.
History suggests debates don’t matter. Newsweek says (here), “At no point in American history has a presidential debate significantly changed the trajectory or outcome of an election. … Debates tend to reinforce existing views rather than change them,” and what matters at the ballot box are “factors which … shape voter preferences over months and years, not in a single evening of television.”
But is this time different? There’s never been a candidate as old as Biden, and event those voters satisfied with his first term may wonder if he’s up for another four years. But it’s hard to imagine voters who elected him to get rid of Trump abandoning him for Trump, when Trump shows no signs of having learned anything or improved in any way.
Surveys show a large majority of the public wish Biden and Trump would be replaced by other candidates. But wishing isn’t getting, and Politico acknowledged a brokered convention won’t happen and Biden will be replaced only if he voluntarily drops out (read story here). As for Republicans replacing Trump, I see no chance of that happening. If voters are stuck with these candidates, I agree with Newsweek that debates won’t decide the election, because voter preferences are formed over months and years, not in one night.