Heather Cox Richardson reviewed the debate and the calls for Biden to step down. As always, she brings a long historical perspective to her comments.
She wrote:
Tonight was the first debate between President Joe Biden and presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, and by far the most striking thing about the debate was the overwhelming focus among pundits immediately afterward about Biden’s appearance and soft, hoarse voice as he rattled off statistics and events. Virtually unmentioned was the fact that Trump lied and rambled incoherently, ignored questions to say whatever he wanted; refused to acknowledge the events of January 6, 2021; and refused to commit to accepting the result of the 2024 presidential election, finally saying he would accept it only if it met his standards for fairness.
Immediately after the debate, there were calls for Biden to drop out of the race, but aside from the fact that the only time a presidential candidate has ever done that—in 1968—it threw the race into utter confusion and the president’s party lost, Biden needed to demonstrate that his mental capacity is strong in order to push back on the Republicans’ insistence that he is incapable of being president. That, he did, thoroughly. Biden began with a weak start but hit his stride as the evening wore on. Indeed, he covered his bases too thoroughly, listing the many accomplishments of his administration in such a hurry that he was sometimes hard to understand.
In contrast, Trump came out strong but faded and became less coherent over time. His entire performance was either lies or rambling non-sequiturs. He lied so incessantly throughout the evening that it took CNN fact-checker Daniel Dale almost three minutes, speaking quickly, to get through the list.
Trump said that some Democratic states allow people to execute babies after they’re born and that every legal scholar wanted Roe v. Wade overturned—both fantastical lies. He said that the deficit is at its highest level ever and that the U.S. trade deficit is at its highest ever: both of those things happened during his administration. He lied that there were no terrorist attacks during his presidency; there were many. He said that Biden wants to quadruple people’s taxes—this is “pure fiction,” according to Dale—and lied that his tax cuts paid for themselves; they have, in fact, added trillions of dollars to the national debt.
Dale went on: Trump lied that the U.S. has provided more aid to Ukraine than Europe has when it’s the other way around, and he was off by close to $100 billion when he named the amount the U.S. has provided to Ukraine. He was off by millions when he talked about how many migrants have crossed the border under Biden, and falsely claimed that some of Biden’s policies—like funding historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) and reducing the price of insulin to $35 a month—were his own accomplishments.
There is no point in going on, because virtually everything he said was a lie. As Jake Lahut of the Daily Beast recorded, he also was all over the map. “On January 6,” Trump said, “we had a great border.” To explain how he would combat opioid addiction, he veered off into talking points about immigration and said his administration “bought the best dog.” He boasted about acing a cognitive test and that he had just recently won two golf club tournaments without mentioning that they were at his own golf courses. “To do that, you have to be quite smart and you have to be able to hit the ball a long way,” he said. “I can do it.”
As Lahut recorded, Trump said this: “Clean water and air. We had it. We had the H2O best numbers ever, and we were using all forms of energy during my 4 years. Best environmental numbers ever, they gave me the statistic [sic.] before I walked on stage actually.”
Trump also directly accused Biden of his own failings and claimed Biden’s own strengths, saying, for example, that Biden, who has enacted the most sweeping legislation of any president since at least Lyndon Johnson, couldn’t get anything done while he, who accomplished only tax cuts, was more effective. He responded to the calling out of his own criminal convictions by saying that Biden “could be a convicted felon,” and falsely stating: “This man is a criminal.” And, repeatedly, Trump called America a “failing nation” and described it as a hellscape.
It went on and on, and that was the point. This was not a debate. It was Trump using a technique that actually has a formal name, the Gish gallop, although I suspect he comes by it naturally. It’s a rhetorical technique in which someone throws out a fast string of lies, non-sequiturs, and specious arguments, so many that it is impossible to fact-check or rebut them in the amount of time it took to say them. Trying to figure out how to respond makes the opponent look confused, because they don’t know where to start grappling with the flood that has just hit them.
It is a form of gaslighting, and it is especially effective on someone with a stutter, as Biden has. It is similar to what Trump did to Biden during a debate in 2020. In that case, though, the lack of muting on the mics left Biden simply saying: “Will you shut up, man?” a comment that resonated with the audience. Giving Biden the enforced space to answer by killing the mic of the person not speaking tonight actually made the technique more effective.
There are ways to combat the Gish gallop—by calling it out for what it is, among other ways—but Biden retreated to trying to give the three pieces of evidence that established his own credentials on the point at hand. His command of those points was notable, but the difference between how he sounded at the debate and how he sounded on stage at a rally in Raleigh, North Carolina, just an hour afterward suggested that the technique worked on him.
That’s not ideal, but as Monique Pressley put it, “The proof of Biden’s ability to run the country is the fact that he is running it. Successfully. Not a debate performance against a pathological lying sociopath.”
A much bigger deal is what it says that the television media and pundits so completely bought into Trump’s performance. They appear to have accepted Trump’s framing of the event—that he is dominant—so fully that the fact Trump unleashed a flood of lies and non-sequiturs simply didn’t register. And, since the format established that the CNN journalists running the debate did not challenge anything either candidate said, and Dale’s fact-checking spot came long after the debate ended, the takeaway of the event was a focus on Biden’s age rather than on Trump’s inability to tell the truth or form a coherent thought.
At the end of the evening, pundits were calling not for Trump—a man liable for sexual assault and business fraud, convicted of 34 felonies, under three other indictments, who lied pathologically—to step down, but for Biden to step down…because he looked and sounded old. At 81, Biden is indeed old, but that does not distinguish him much from Trump, who is 78 and whose inability to answer a question should raise concerns about his mental acuity.
About the effect of tonight’s events, former Republican operative Stuart Stevens warned: “Don’t day trade politics. It’s a sucker’s game. A guy from Queens out on bail bragged about overturning Roe v. Wade, said in public he didn’t have sex with a porn star, defended tax cuts for billionaires, defended Jan. 6th. and called America the worst country in the world. That guy isn’t going to win this race.”
Trump will clearly have pleased his base tonight, but Stevens is right to urge people to take a longer view. It’s not clear whether Trump or Biden picked up or lost votes; different polls gave the win to each, and it’s far too early to know how that will shake out over time.
Of far more lasting importance than this one night is the clear evidence that stage performance has trumped substance in political coverage in our era. Nine years after Trump launched his first campaign, the media continues to let him call the shots.
“Biden needed to demonstrate that his mental capacity is strong in order to push back on the Republicans’ insistence that he is incapable of being president. That, he did, thoroughly”
He did, thoroughly? If you say so, Heather.
I respect her, but she is completely wrong about that. Obviously.
Working from home, I earn $165 per hour. When my neighbor told me she was now making an average of $95, I was very astonished, but now (ubd-83) I understand how it works. I now have a great deal of freedom thanks to becoming my own employer.I carry out the action>>> https://xne.us/zqb
Because of one weak debate performance–if it is that–Biden is supposed to step down and hand the presidency to a convicted felon, violator of national security, pathological liar and rapist with dictatorial ambitions?
The logic isn’t that Biden should step down and hand the presidency to Trump. It’s that he will hand the presidency to Trump if he doesn’t step down. One may dispute the logic, but understand it.
Utter nonsense. Don’t swallow whatever koolaid the NY Times talking heads have been guzzling.
Why is it nonsense?
He should step down and hand the Democratic candidacy to someone with a prayer of winning, which Biden doesn’t.
Agreed
No one here is suggesting that Biden hand the presidency to Trump. Clearly. What people are suggesting, here and throughout the Democratic Party, is that Biden step aside so that the party can choose a viable candidate at its convention.
Thomas Jefferson’s inaugural address, a decent one, was apparently inaudible to any listeners beyond the first row. Should he too have stepped down?
How many Americans were present?
Thomas Jefferson didn’t have to contend with the internet, telephones, mobile phones, TV, cameras, radios, et al. That was more than 200 years ago and it was a completely different world than the one we live in today.
The issue was not primarily with Biden’s delivery. We all have long known that he is not a great public speaker.
Again, the worst of my high-school debate students could have outperformed Biden last night. HE HAD BEEN PREPPING FOR THIS FOR WEEKS. He knew what was coming. He should have been able to commit to memory a short, memorable, devastating, fact-based quip in response to every utterly predictable statement that Trump made. But he couldn’t. He could not remember and deliver cogent, clear, forceful rebuttals. THAT, not his mumbling and rambling, is the surest sign of his severe cognitive decline. He should step aside. NOW.
He should call a press conference, announce that he will finish his term but is stepping aside, and enjoin the Democratic National Convention to choose the candidate to replace him. Don’t tell me it’s too late. It has happened numerous times in the past that the Convention chose the candidate in a vote of the delegates.
Yes, we live in a different world, one in which the decent man who holds our highest office is, in effect, now being asked to hand over the White House to a convicted criminal who will abandon Ukraine, kowtow to Putin, trash our environmental regulations, strip away the rights of women, BIPOC and LGBTQ people, and establish a right-wing dictatorship. Have we gone completely nuts?
Again, he’s not being asked to hand over the White House to Trump. He’s being asked to not hand over the White House to Trump.
Exactly, FLERP. If Biden stays in the race, that’s very likely what he is doing.
“Virtually unmentioned was the fact that Trump lied….”
Virtually unmentioned??? Is she kidding? Blind? Head in the sand? Every article has mentioned that Trump lied consistently. That’s what Trump does and everyone knows it. The question was, can Biden counter those lies and the answer was no. If he can’t handle a gasbag like Trump, how on earth do you think he’s dealing with Putin or other world leaders? Stop making excuses for the man. If he can’t handle the job, he should step aside. Period.
Biden was terrible at debating.
He was dreadful last night.
Debating is not a big part of being President.
Getting stuff done by negotiations is.
Biden has been a superb President.
He has brought together the Western Alliance to resist Putin’s aggression. Trump wouldn’t do that.
Trump would make an alliance with Russia, North Korea (he loves Kim), China, and probably Iran.
He has stood up for civil rights of everyone. Trump would not.
None of which addressed my point, Diane. The claim that Trump’s lies have been “virtually unmentioned” is a load of sh—- and you (and HCR) know it.
I never said that Trump’s lies went unmentioned. I wrote last night that Trump offered “nonstop lies.” HCR did and she probably wrote that at midnight before everyone else weighed in. Your concern for fair treatment of the Workd’s Biggest Liar is touching.
Yes, HCR said it – I quoted it. So you’re saying that it’s okay to accuse in advance? To say that no one mentioned Trump’s lies before anyone even had a chance to mention Trump’s lies? Wow. Your concern for the truth is, well, I’ll leave it there.
Dienne, HCR posted her piece, as usual, about 4 am. She can write whatever she wants. I’m not her editor. As for your personal insult, do it again and you are permanently banned.
The point, Diane, and I see it a lot here too, is the frequent claim about how the media “goes soft” on Trump. Just a day or two ago that claim was made and FLERP! refuted it with about a dozen articles just from that day. The media (Faux News excepted, of course) – like this blog – is non-stop anti-Trump, so any claim about Trump’s lies going unnoticed is risible. Biden is not the victim of an evil media cabal out to get him.
Trump is an immoral crook. Any media that normalizes him is dumb or corrupt.
Did you even read what I wrote?
Yes, I did. I hope you took seriously what I wrote. No more personal insults. None. Not one. Got it?
Diane has been nothing but patient with you, Dienne. I would have bounced you months ago.
I went to one of the NYT headlines that flerp! posted and the article that was supposedly anti-Trump (the first headline about some corporation selling some product during a Republican gathering) was instead a prime example of NYT both siderism. I had to google the headline, which made it hard and I doubt anyone else bothered to do that and read the article.
The article was a textbook case of what NYT reporters believe is them being very hard on Trump: report true facts that reflect negatively on Trump, have someone that the NYT presents as rabidly anti-Trump criticize whatever Trump/Republicans are doing, followed by a couple paragraphs of “the other side” normalizing whatever the “anti-Trump” person is criticizing.
I actually drafted one of my “too wordy” comments analyzing that supposedly anti-Trump NYT article using direct quotes to demonstrate the “both siderism” in it, but I decided I was not in the mood for more personal insults and attacks. If someone wants to challenge me, I am happy to try to re-create that long comment so that readers who erroneously believed that the article supported the thesis that the NYT writes lots of negative articles about Trump. It supports the thesis that the NYT specializes in both sides reporting of any negative news connected to Trump.
In that particular link from flerp!, there were 6 or 7 paragraphs that described what was going on and a reader would have to read quite far into the article to see any criticism. Followed, of course, by “the other side” in which the NYT informed readers that in fact there might be nothing at all wrong with what the Republicans are doing.
I wish the many anti-Biden articles in the NYT spent even a fraction of the time showing “the other side” as the supposed anti-Trump article did.
Instead of proving that the NYT was anti-Trump, the first article at least was a case book example of how the definition of being anti-Trump in the NYT means telling the truth about something improper the Republicans do that they don’t want known, and giving the Republicans plenty of space to say that there is nothing wrong with what they did. The NYT informs readers that Trump/Republicans did this thing that rabid anti-Trump folks criticize, but others say that it is totally fine, and no one can be sure either way.
I took a look at how the NYT covered David Duke’s campaign for Gov in 1991 to compare, and the coverage was completely different. In 1991, Duke’s past in the Klan was reported the way Biden’s failing cognitive ability is reported today – prominently mentioned in every single article with a reminder that Duke’s past and Biden’s cognitive failings are very serious issues that voters are extremely concerned about and rightly so.
If today’s NYT reporters were sent in a time machine to cover David Duke’s 1991 campaign, Duke’s KKK past would be mentioned as often as Trump’s past as the most prominent birther in America was. Mentioned a couple times early on and then considered no longer newsworthy because reporters are too busy reporting on the great policies for working men Duke is offering, and too busy writing weekly articles so readers can hear what the regular, sympathetic folks at a diner who adore David Duke want (hint: they just want someone to care about them the way David Duke does). There would be follow-up think pieces criticizing the Democrats’ for failing to offer something to appeal to Duke voters, who say the evil Dems only care about “the elites” who are obsessed with “identity politics”. David Duke would have won if today’s NYT reporters wrote the stories about him. And whatever bad thing Duke did a year ago or a week ago that Republicans don’t want mentioned would be ancient history that no one remembers except a few “rabid Duke haters” who are too elite to understand the cares of the regular old Duke voters.
I wish the NYT covered Biden in the so-called “negative” way they cover Trump.
There would be one article with the negative information that Biden had a lousy debate performance. The article would spend the first few paragraphs describing the debate, finally get to the fact that Biden looked old and tired and never made the criticisms of Trump he should have. There would be one quote by someone identified as a rabid Republican saying that Biden was too old to be president, followed by 3 or 4 paragraphs where someone else defends Biden’s performance. In short, if Biden was covered like Trump was covered in that supposedly “anti-Trump” NYT article cited by flerp!, the single article about the debate would inform readers that Biden wasn’t sharp at the debate and looked tired, but that could either be a big deal, or not a big deal at all, and no one at the NYT has any idea which one it is.
I disagree with the statement that Trump’s falsehoods went “largely unmentioned.”
Every headline and story I read today, and there were more than a few, stated essentially “Trump Lies, Biden Out of It”. There was shock at Biden’s performance, to be sure. But equal time was given to the catalog of lies Trump spewed.
Imagine if the NYT gave Biden’s terrible debate performance the kind of coverage they give Trump’s terrible debate performance. A presidential candidate having a lousy debate isn’t unusual — it’s happened a lot in my lifetime. A presidential candidate pathologically lying throughout a debate and denying reality and making up fantasies that never happened is unprecedented.
If the NYT covered Biden like they do Trump, there would be one or two stories about Biden’s lousy performance and one or two stories about Trump’s lousy performance. After that, reporters at the NYT would explain that since everyone already knows that Biden did a terrible job at the debate, that means it’s no longer newsworthy and Biden’s debate performance will no longer be mentioned in articles about Biden.
But the NYT amplifies negative Biden news in a way that they never do for Trump. There is a double standard and negative stories about Trump are newsworthy for a day but negative stories about Biden are part of the permanent narrative that readers must be reminded of every day. I saw so many stories today that characterized Biden’s debate performance as something that was entirely disqualifying with the big news being whether Biden will immediately resign or rightly go down to abject defeat for his grave sin. I barely read any mention of Trump’s lies, and not a single one that quoted anyone who said Trump’s lies are disqualifying and lots of important (but anonymous) people know Trump should step down for the good of the country.
Negative news about Trump is a one day story. Negative news about Biden is amplified and deemed important enough to flood the zone for the next month. Or more likely the next 3 months.
How many news stories did you see that presented Trump’s pathological lying as a disqualifying event that is worthy of endless analysis as to when Trump will step down?
When the media says Trump’s lies aren’t a big story because “everyone already knows” everything that comes out of Trump’s mouth is a lie, that’s normalizing his lies as unimportant. Why is Trump unprecedented lying throughout a debate not important but Biden’s debate performance on a single night is? Because the media says so?
But Trump lying ISN’T news. Like, at all.
Imagine Trump gave a speech and everything he said was absolutely true, and measured, and mature. THAT would be news. But Trump lies so regularly, and in the same bombastic manner, that it’s a yawn.
By that standard, Biden looking elderly and old and befuddled isn’t news. What would be news would be if Biden came out doing cartwheels, finishing off with a double back tuck, and then wiping the floor with the top debater in the country.
Do you really think there is anyone in America who doesn’t know Biden looks elderly and tired and had a bad debate performance yet?
Your comment seems to be saying that Trump lying is treated like a yawn – not newsworthy – but Biden being old and seeming elderly and fatigued is newsworthy.
Biden being old isn’t news to anyone. Just like Trump lying isn’t news to anyone. So why is the media reporting the supposedly newsworthy story that Biden is old every day?
Hint: it’s not because they believe Americans are uninformed that Biden is old and seems like an old man. It’s to amplify the Republican narrative that Biden’s age makes Biden unfit for the job, and voters are very concerned about having an old president.
If Trump was treated like Biden, there would be multiple stories amplifying the narrative that Trump’s pathological lies make Trump unfit to be president and voters are very concerned about having a pathological liar as president,and the fact that the Republican party nominated a pathological liar who incited an insurrection is unprecedented, and what will Republicans do to fix this fiasco of having Trump as their candidate?
If the NYT treated Biden the way they do Trump, Biden’s poor debate performance would be written as a “both sides” news story. Biden performed poorly at the debate. Some partisan anti-Biden folks claim that makes him unfit. Other voters know that Biden has run this country successfully for the last 4 years and want him to continue and those voters don’t understand why partisan anti-Biden Republicans are making such a big deal that Biden didn’t have a good debate, when voters know that Biden’s job performance for the last 4 years has been so outstanding. NYT reporters have no idea which side is right, so voters, you make your mind whether to side with the partisan Biden-haters who said Biden didn’t debate well, or the many voters who believe the last 4 years of a strong economy (after the economic disaster caused by Trump’s first term in office) is far more important than a single debate.
The NYT has an anti-Biden bias. It is in the tank for “both sides equal” reporting about negative Trump news, while turning anything negative about Biden into a huge scandal that disqualifies him from being president.
“Biden being old isn’t news to anyone.”
When Flerp and I said on these pages a few months ago that Biden was showing signs of age-related issues (specifically, I said that he is in his early 80s but looks and acts as though he is 90), we were PILED UPON here by people DENYING THAT HE LOOKED AND ACTED QUITE OLD. Piled upon. I will not name names. But De Nile is a river.
Whoever came up with the bright idea of putting this small-of-stature, scholarly, geeky little guy in warrior dress up was fired, I hope. Evidently, his people thought it would make him look tough, but OF COURSE it had precisely the opposite effect. And no one needed to be told that. It was ridiculous prima facie.
Dukakis had a problem. A lot of Americans want a person who looks tough in the highest office. And Dukakis didn’t. He is small of stature. He looks geeky because he is geeky. Geeky in a chief executive is a superb thing, but a lot of Americans don’t understand that.
So, his people tried to deal with this perception problem in an utterly stupid way. NO ONE with any sense defends what they did. The actual way to have done it would have been to take it head on–to have Dukakis get in front of a microphone and say, “I’ve been reading in our polls that some people imagine that I’m not tough enough to be President and Commander in Chief. They make this mistake of judgment because they look at me and they see a guy who is of slender build–someone who looks scholarly and maybe even a little geeky. BIG MISTAKE. What matters in the presidency is that a person is TOUGH OF MIND. A person in that office has to have the resolve and the fortitude to do whatever is necessary for the American people, to take on the great tasks and carry them through. Well, I AM THAT GUY. Our enemies would underestimate me at their peril.”
“people DENYING THAT HE LOOKED AND ACTED QUITE OLD”
Denying that Biden LOOKED old? What are you talking about?
Sometimes Trump looks and acts quite old. Sometimes Bernie Sanders looks and acts quite old. Sometimes Biden looks and acts quite old. Stop putting words in our mouth that anyone denied the obvious.
What we did is wonder why you and flerp! could only see the times that Biden looked old and ignore all the times that Biden didn’t look old. Bob, you wrote that Biden “looks and acts as thought he is 90”?? Well, even a broken clock tells the correct time twice a day.
It’s hard to follow you, Bob, because you keep saying that Biden’s “looking and acting quite old” doesn’t mean Biden is cognitively unfit to serve another term, and you wrote an excellent post about all the amazing accomplishments that Biden made while he “looked and acted old” and then you turn around and rant about how we are denying that Biden “looks and acts as though he is 90” as if that is an undeniable fact that we will not acknowledge. No doubt there are times when Biden looks like a 90 year old man, but that doesn’t mean Biden always looks like a 90 year old man or even that Biden looks like a 90 year old man on a regular basis. Biden does not ACT like a 90 year old when he does his job. He ACTS like a man who has proven he can perform his job better than most presidents in the recent past.
It would border on education malpractice if a principal fired a talented, amazing teacher with 50 years of experience who was CURRENTLY performing his/her job in the classroom better than any teacher in that position for the last 30 years, on the grounds that parents thought the teacher “looked and acted quite old” at the parents’ night presentation.
So what would be the agenda of the parents who keep crowing “We told you so six months ago, that teacher looks too old, we are going to keep saying that until that teacher steps down and is replaced with someone who doesn’t look old.” ??
I don’t get how any parent would keep crowing “I told you so, the teacher looks so old” and then deny that they are saying that the teacher’s age makes them unfit to teach. They are just saying that the teacher must be forced to retire for the good of the students in the classroom.
In other words, I have no idea what the heck your point is. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, so this is just my possible translation of what you are saying:
Bob believes “Biden was showing signs of age-related issues (specifically, I said that he is in his early 80s but looks and acts as though he is 90)”
Bob does NOT believe that Biden is too cognitively impaired to continue to serve as president in a 2nd term.
Bob DOES believe that Biden should be forced to retire for the good of the country. But not because Biden is doing a terrible job as president because Bob acknowledges that Biden has done a good job as president. And not because Biden is too cognitively impaired. But Biden should be forced to retire anyway because he looks like he is 90.
I acknowledge that this is likely not exactly right, so hopefully you can tell me what your point is. I just hope your point is not that if someone who is doing a very good job LOOKS old, it’s good to make them retire so someone younger can do their job.
Isn’t that the classic description of age-discrimination?
For the record, performing poorly in a debate where your opponent is free to gaslight and Gish Gallop is something that happens to people of all ages. It’s just when a younger person who is being gaslit gets befuddled, people do not blame it on their age.
Biden would struggle mightily to pick up a 200 lb weight. So would much younger men. But people with implicit bias would view Biden’s struggles as an age problem, not a problem that many people had.
In the 50 or more years I have been paying attention to politics, “performs poorly in a debate against a classic gaslighter given free reign to spew lies” has never been something that disqualifies someone from being president. Politicians from Bernie Sanders to everyone who ever ran for the Republican nomination in 2016 and 2024 had bad debates. They all looked befuddled and performed badly at various times.
I believe Biden is a better president than Obama. So it’s mystifying to me why people keep implying his age means Biden should step down for the good of the country. And “because he looks old” is as convincing an argument as it is when it applies to firing high performing old teachers.
Only one of the two candidates has the cognitive fitness to be president in 2025. It’s the one who “looks” old on occasion. That should be the end of discussion and it would be if the cognitively fit but “looks too old” candidate was the Republican.