Is the endless blather about the big debate between Biden and Trump a classic much ado about nothing?

Every four years, political prognosticators bleed an ocean of digital ink in the lead up to the election cycle’s much ballyhooed presidential debates, only to tell us afterwards that none of it mattered in any event, nor do such things usually matter.  Will this time be different?

Every four years, political prognosticators bleed an ocean of digital ink in the lead up to the election cycle’s much ballyhooed presidential debates, only to tell us afterwards that none of it mattered in any event, nor do such things usually matter.  To support the contention that debates rarely make a difference, commentators will point out that several recent incumbent presidents have had very poor performances in their first debate, appearing out of touch and ill-prepared.  These less-than-illustrious ranks include Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and even Ronald Reagan.  Ironically, President Reagan is also frequently cited by those who insist debates can, in fact, make a difference in the outcome.  After what most considered a poor performance in his first debate with Walter Mondale on October 7, 1984, when the President was said to be confused and tired at times and only 35% of the audience considered him the winner, the Gipper bounced back two weeks later with one of his signature one liners.  The topic of his relatively advanced age came up for a second time, giving him the opportunity to turn things around by claiming, “I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience.”  President Reagan’s debate with Jimmy Carter four years earlier was also said to help lead him to victory, when he brushed aside President Carter’s pessimistic government techno-speak with a simple, “There you go again.”  Fortunately or unfortunately, many believe that debates in general are prone to do more harm than good, fatally damaging a candidacy rather than setting the stage for success.  Michael Dukakis infamously refused to admit that he’d personally want the death penalty for a hypothetical murderer that raped and killed his wife in a debate with George H. W. Bush in 1988.  Rather than stating the obvious, of course I’d be made as hell personally and want revenge, but that doesn’t mean tit for tat violence or retribution is good for society, he came across as cold and empty claiming, “No, I don’t, Bernard, and I think you know that I’ve opposed the death penalty during all of my life. I don’t see any evidence that it’s a deterrent and I think there are better and more effective ways to deal with violent crime.”  Four years later, President George H.W. Bush didn’t even need to speak to become the subject of ridicule, merely look at his watch like he wanted off the stage something fierce.  His opponent, Bill Clinton, was an expert debater who took advantage of his seeming detachment, emphasizing how he felt people’s economic pain and was proud of their success, “The people who have jobs and educations and opportunities that didn’t have them 10 years ago don’t think it’s irrelevant at all; they think it’s highly relevant and they wish the rest of the country had them,” he noted about his home state when third party candidate Ross Perot dismissed his experience in Arkansas as “irrelevant.”  Eight years later, President Clinton’s number two, Al Gore, also didn’t need to say anything.  An overabundance of what appeared to be blush on his cheeks and an overall snotty attitude set the stage for George W. Bush’s victory.

CNN’s Ronald Brownstein captured the “do they matter or don’t they” matter phenomena earlier this week.  “Few subjects divide political practitioners and political scientists more than the importance of presidential debates. Almost without exception, academics who have studied public opinion polls tracing back decades believe that the debates, for all the attention they receive, have had only minimal effect, if any at all, on the outcome of presidential races.”  Debates matter “at the margin – a little bit here, a little bit there…maybe,” explained Christopher Wlezien, a professor of government at the University of Texas at Austin and co-author of The Timeline of Presidential Elections, a book about the impact of campaigns on races. “It’s really hard to tell if it’s had much of an effect at all. The best way to predict where we are going to be at the end of the debate season is where we are at the beginning of the debate season.”  Of course, “People who work on presidential campaigns are much more likely than the political scientists to view the debates as potentially pivotal moments. Political practitioners often point to presidential contests – such as those in 1960, 1980 and 1992 – when the debates solidified attitudes about the candidates that had been developing during the campaign but had not fully formed.”  To that end, “The most lasting moments in presidential debates have tended to be those that shape voters’ judgments about the personal character and capacity of the candidates. And that usually turns less on detailed arguments about tax policy or foreign affairs than the strength, mastery, energy and empathy that each candidate projects.”  “You can generally tell who is winning the debate by watching it with the sound off,” noted Doug Sosnik, the top White House political adviser to President Clinton’s 1996 reelection campaign.  Thus, the question before us in advance of the face off between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump tomorrow is, will this one matter at all?  The prognosticators are, perhaps needless to say, out in full force, posting a wide range of opinions about the potential stakes and what each man needs to achieve to be successful.  In that regard, I believe Mr. Brownstein captures the overall dynamic better than most, outlining what is at stake for each candidate.  “Biden is confronting widespread doubts about whether he has the physical and mental capacity to handle the presidency today, much less through a possible second four-year term. Trump’s biggest challenge is character: While retrospective assessments of his presidency have been improving, many voters remain unconvinced he possesses the ethics, commitment to the rule of law or moral compass they expect in a president.  For either man, the debate could assuage or intensify these concerns.”

Putting this another way, President Biden needs to demonstrate that he’s up to the job while President Trump needs to convince voters he’s sane and reliable enough for it.  Sanity might seem like a relatively low bar – and in many ways it is – but for a figure as notoriously mercurial (if not outright volatile) as the former President, keeping calm, cool, and collected while his opponent calls him a convicted felon, an insurrectionist, racist, sexist, homophobe, and more directly to his face certainly isn’t going be easy.  The last time these two got into a bitter tit-for-tat at their first debate in 2020, the result was one of the worst matches in recent memory, as they talked over one another, repeatedly interrupted one another, and generally behaved poorly.  President Biden was largely seen as the winner by the proverbial hair, but neither man looked good by any objective standard, much less anything close to presidential, practically barking at one another for 90 minutes like wild dogs.  Four years later, former President Trump cannot afford a repeat of that performance, but he will need to find a way to respond to what will undoubtedly be an onslaught from President Joe Biden.  These responses will need to be carefully calibrated to both deflect the charge and turn it around on this opponent without seeming to be overly aggressive, walking an incredibly fine line the entire time.  For example, what should President Trump say when President Biden calls him a convicted felon after the recent verdict in New York City?  The ideal response would blend some combination of humor with substance, something along the lines of, “I don’t think anybody known as ‘Genocide Joe’ in their own party should be commenting on potential crimes, but I’ll give my opponent the benefit of the doubt, the same way he should to me.  I don’t think it’s any secret that many, many people believe the prosecution in New York was motivated entirely by politics, but that’s why there is an appeals process and why we expect to prevail and see the conviction overturned at that level.  I am confident this conviction won’t stand and in the meantime, we need to let the legal process play out.  At the same time, there’s a double standard here that needs to be pointed out.  President Biden insists he has nothing to do with these prosecutions, but then spends $50 million celebrating the outcome.  You can’t have it both ways.  Either you want a free and fair election where the voters decide the outcome as they should, or you want to continue to play lawfare as we are seeing right now.  Today, I challenge the President to take a stand for democracy.  He might not control the cases themselves, but he’s the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in the country.  He can certainly declare his belief that this election should be decided by the voters, and that any legal entanglements should be addressed after November 5.  The question is will he?  Will the President insist that this election can only be decided by the voters, right here and right now?”

A similar pattern will work for most of the anticipated attacks coming from the current President, and where appropriate, the former President should and must point out the chaos we’ve seen under his opponent, economically, socially, and internationally.  In 2020, President Trump was on defense by default as the sitting President at the time, but those roles are now reversed.  President Biden has a record of his own, and lets just say it’s less than stellar and it’s no secret that’s the case.  Moreover, President Biden has rarely had to defend this record in anything resembling a confrontational setting, rarely taking interviews or holding press conferences, and on the few occasions he does, generally getting away with nonsensical statements like claiming inflation was already 9% when he took office.  The debate will not be such an easy venue and given the President himself has a history of showing flashes of temper when confronted by facts he doesn’t like, he too has a fine line to walk to seem sufficiently Presidential.  Contrary to conventional wisdom in establishment circles, President Biden needs to more than simply stand up for 90 minutes without freezing in place like he suddenly found himself on the surface of the moon.  Displaying the necessary energy is a part of it, yes, but appearing angry, frustrated, or overly aggressive could be equally damaging.  One of the least appreciated aspects of President Trump’s resilience in the face of both state and federal charges, followed by at least one conviction and counting, is that he’s been transformed from the bully into the victim.  An overly aggressive President Biden could reinforce this dynamic, especially when the President, even at his most alert, has developed the unfortunate habit of frequently slurring his words, at times sounding like an angry drunk uncle at Thanksgiving dinner.  Progressives and others who loathe President Trump will undoubtedly cheer such tactics, but the general public is likely to be less than enthused.  Ultimately, if the debate serves any purpose, enthusiasm in general is one of the most likely outcomes with the classic impact at the margins.  A deflated Biden will lead to an even more deflated attitude among supporters who are already on the brink of panic.  A confident Trump, meanwhile, will add to the confidence of supporters who already believe he is favored to win come November.

Elections, however, are decided in the middle, returning us to where we started:  Will this debate matter at all or are we looking at a classic case of much ado about nothing?  Of course, I cannot say for sure, but it seems to me that the most likely outcome is the one quoted from Mr. Brownstein earlier, “The most lasting moments in presidential debates have tended to be those that shape voters’ judgments about the personal character and capacity of the candidates. And that usually turns less on detailed arguments about tax policy or foreign affairs than the strength, mastery, energy and empathy that each candidate projects.”  The stakes in this particular debate are incredibly high given the closeness of the race, the fact that many claim they would rather vote for anyone except these two candidates, and the relationships between the two men and their supporters being notoriously acrimonious.  The middle will need to choose one side or the other on election day, and many will be choosing based on emotion rather than logic.  If these voters conclude that President Biden cannot do the job any longer, they will not vote for him.  If they conclude that President Trump is too crazy for the job a second time, they will not vote for him either.  The debate this early in the cycle is an opportunity to either reinforce or reset this dynamic.  In that regard, I think President Trump is the candidate who is most likely to benefit.  President Biden needs to do what is essentially impossible based on his recent public appearances, where he has variously mangled his words, wandered off, froze in place, etc. while defending his record and keeping his own cool.  He hasn’t achieved anything close since at least 2020, if not earlier.  President Trump, meanwhile, simply needs to keep himself under control and project a calm strength.  This is a relatively low bar – even for him.  If I had to guess, mainstream media prognosticators will wake up on Friday morning and immediately start explaining why President Biden didn’t look as bad as everyone thought and how President Trump didn’t look as good.  If that’s the case, what passes for their analysis will tell you all you need to know about whether the debate had an impact.