Are The Debates a Mistake?
Yesterday, Republican Presumptive Nominee Donald Trump agreed to debate President Joe Biden in a June 27 debate on CNN and a September 10 debate moderated by ABC News. Since 1988, the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) has independently organized all general election presidential debates, with a tradition of holding three debates in the Fall before the election. This year, for the first time in decades, the major-party presidential candidates have bypassed the CPD by separately agreeing to two debates and setting their own terms for each event.
The CNN debate will be held in Atlanta, with Jake Tapper and Dana Bash moderating the event without a live audience. This showdown will be open to any presidential candidate who meets the following criteria: achieves 15% in four separate approved national polls between March 15 and June 20; places on enough ballots to have a path to winning a majority of the votes in the electoral college; and agrees to the debate rules.
ABC News confirmed late yesterday that their debate format would use similar rules and criteria for participation, and will be moderated by David Muir and Linsey Davis. While many have already lost focus by postulating about the possibility that Robert Kennedy, Jr. might somehow make the cut and ultimately ruin the two-person format, Biden advisers have stated that the president will only participate in debates that are one-on-one with Donald Trump, a concept that has been made expressly clear to CNN producers. Biden has also declined Trump’s request to a third debate on Fox News in October.
Last night, following the news that both campaigns had agreed to actual dates and basic terms for the meet-ups, I posted the following statement:
After checking in on the responses this morning, I could see that many people are very passionate about the idea of this debate, and there doesn’t seem to be a lot of middle ground on the topic. The comments were fairly evenly matched with half of the responses expressing complete support for President Biden and the importance of the debates, and the other half agreeing with me completely and very relieved that I had said what they were thinking. I also got one response that called me a “Negative Nelly,” which bothered me a lot — it is so dismissive of the point I’m trying to make and shows they don’t know who I am as a person.
These responses made one thing very clear — it was impossible to thoroughly discuss all of the reasons that had ultimately led me to my initial conclusion on the limited format social media provides. I will now attempt to explain all of my thoughts on the issue in this article with a better break-down of my thoughts and explanations.
Donald Trump and Joe Biden are using two completely different political languages to communicate their messages. This problem will only be emphasized in a debate. While President Biden is still adhering to a commendable traditional way of running his administration and his press releases, Trump is using his Truth Social platform to make incendiary statements that are intended to shock the public and appeal to a certain type of hostile voter. For example, Trump’s acceptance of Biden’s offer to debate was formally made, and thus reported, based on this statement:
Now everyone, journalists included, must reference Trump’s acceptance through a series of WWF Smackdown taunts that prove the one true point of Trump engaging in these debates is entertainment. Trump’s closing statement of “Let’s get ready to Rumble!!!” perfectly expresses his intent to make this debate a circus show, and the fact that he is using proper punctation and spelling means that his words were thoroughly reviewed and edited as compared to many of his extemporaneous posts. This style of bombastic rhetoric and disrespectful taunts has worked in the past for Trump, and it will continue to work on those who already support him.
We have seen what a match-up of competing political styles has looked like in the past. When Hillary Clinton debated Donald Trump in 2016, it was an opportunity for one candidate to emphasize their decent and experienced approach to leading the country. What ended up happening was the exact opposite as the democratic tradition of a Presidential Debate devolved into a reality TV reunion, complete with schoolyard bullying and aggressive posturing meant to intimidate the female candidate.
The United States Supreme Court is another prime example of the American public’s inability to perceive a threat that is not necessarily an immediate one. I have waived my hands in the air screaming fire for years in an attempt to get voters to understand the connection between electing a president in 2016 and the possibility of a Conservative Majority overturning Roe v. Wade. Many smart people simply refuse to acknowledge a real threat until it is at their door — the election in 2016 taught us this figuratively, and the one in 2020 taught us literally.
The 2016 Debates did not galvanize voters to choose sanity, rather they made the rational public feel like the choice was so obvious that they didn’t even need to vote for Clinton. For the irrational public, the ones who ultimately gave us a Donald Trump Presidency in 2016, the debate provided them with entertainment because they thought they were electing a Senior Class President and the graduation trip was the most important issue on an American agenda.
Lowering oneself to Donald Trump’s level, in an attempt to elevate the public’s understanding of important political policy, has only proved to lessen the opposing candidate to Trump’s film-flam level of nonsense. The definition of insanity is repeating the same task, over and over, thinking it will yield a different result. History has already taught us that attempting to successfully debate Donald Trump in any kind of serious setting is insane.
In a recent New York Times/Siena College poll released on Monday, that surveyed 4,097 registered voters from April 28 to May 9, Trump was ahead of Biden in five of six key swing states including: Wisconsin; Georgia; Nevada; Arizona; and Pennsylvania. This poll showed Biden to have a lead in Michigan. I know, I know, looking at a poll is ridiculous in terms of gauging an actual outcome, but I continue to argue that we have to look at a collection of polling data over time to glean where each campaign might be lacking, and as a general barometer for how the voting public might be receiving political messaging.
I believe that President Biden is so close to Donald Trump in the polls because the American public is not easily able to discern the real level of Biden’s accomplishments, due to a general “dumbing-down” of our culture through a lack of education. The things President Biden is achieving, and the way he is maneuvering are incredibly complicated concepts to explain to a majority of people who don’t possess an understanding of basic Civics. When a person does not know how the federal government actually works, it is nearly impossible to appreciate just how President Biden’s expert work has secured so many benefits for everyday Americans.
On the issue of refusing to agree to a debate for such a long time, Donald Trump did what he does best — he forced the hand of his opponent in a situation where he has nothing to lose. For this reason, it was necessary for President Biden to call Trump’s bluff and force the debate to be scheduled with a formal agreement. We have to examine the very real possibility that Trump never intended to actually go through with a debate. If this is the case and Trump actually does bow out of the meeting, Biden will have played the perfect hand by reeling Trump in and then making him look scared.
Joe Biden is often underestimated. I have to admit that I learned this lesson recently during the State of the Union address in March. President Biden was able to present a calculated and effective platform that rivaled the taunts and jeers from MAGA supporters in the room. Biden was able to make Trump’s supporters look ineffective and silly, and so the possibility that he can do the same directly to Trump during a debate is not such a remote concept.
I will point out that it is easier to deliver a State of the Union speech, as President of the United States, and remain in professional and serious mode. A Presidential Debate is an entirely different gear, one that requires a successful candidate to be both colloquial and serious. Because Donald Trump will be neither, it will be harder for Biden to pivot between these two dynamics as flawlessly as he has done with opponents in the past.
Another strong argument for the necessity of holding a Presidential Debate is the need to uphold crucial traditions that Trump has sought to destroy with his bombastic ignorance. A debate is important for helping the electorate to review each candidate and determine who is better qualified. While this concept seems antiquated at this time in history, the importance of the process should not be overlooked.
By agreeing to two debates on his own terms, rather than the typical three arranged by the independent CPD body, Biden is already modifying the pre-established terms of the debating tradition. I would argue that this best shows Biden’s skill of modernizing established events to fit what best serves the public in the moment, while preserving the foundation of the principle at hand. It’s too bad that a majority of Americans won’t understand the subtle beauty of Biden’s political compromises, but his bold move to force Trump into a debating corner could pay off. We will just have to wait until June to see if Trump bails, and then cash in on Biden’s expert bluff.
Amee Vanderpool writes the SHERO Newsletter and is an attorney, published author, contributor to newspapers and magazines, and analyst for BBC radio. She can be reached at avanderpool@gmail.com or follow her on Twitter @girlsreallyrule.
Paid subscriptions and one-time tributes embedded in each article allow me to keep publishing critical and informative work that is sometimes made available to the public — thank you. If you like this piece and want to support independent journalism further, you can forward this article to others, get a paid subscription or gift subscription, or donate once, as much as you like today.
This is coming across as a dick waving contest🙄
I think the debates are a mistake.