US Election - First Presidential Debate 2020
Discussion
Well I thought that Chris Wallis actually did a pretty decent job of trying to shut Trump up (and also but far less frequently Biden) as he constantly interrupted the debate.
ETA - I couldn't help thinking though that if they had both agreed to 2 minutes uninterrupted each to answer every point (which apparently they had), why Chris Wallis (or a.n.other) didn't have the control to basically switch off the mic for one party when the other was having their 2 minutes response time?
Trump came across as both evasive in not actually answering the question, and (as usual) argumentative.
Biden wasn't particularly forceful, but stuck to his point and did seem to actually answer the questions rather than bluster on about irrelevant stuff. He also quite effectively used the camera by directly addressing it to make his points particularly about the current challenges and future issues affecting "regular" Americans.
... obviously IMO - YMMV!
ETA - I couldn't help thinking though that if they had both agreed to 2 minutes uninterrupted each to answer every point (which apparently they had), why Chris Wallis (or a.n.other) didn't have the control to basically switch off the mic for one party when the other was having their 2 minutes response time?
Trump came across as both evasive in not actually answering the question, and (as usual) argumentative.
Biden wasn't particularly forceful, but stuck to his point and did seem to actually answer the questions rather than bluster on about irrelevant stuff. He also quite effectively used the camera by directly addressing it to make his points particularly about the current challenges and future issues affecting "regular" Americans.
... obviously IMO - YMMV!
Edited by C n C on Wednesday 30th September 04:23
I saw the first half of it - I thought Biden came across as weak and old, Trump was annoying as usual and talked down Biden, but he managed to get some digs in at Biden - for example, Biden was listing 3 things, skipped from 2-3, Trump interjected and said 'you missed number 2 by the way".
It will be interesting to see what the polls will say, but I think Trump dominated the debate (sadly) and I suspect some of the undecideds will wonder how Biden will cope with tougher discussions than coping with Trump in a TV studio. I think the Democrats missed a trick by not going with Sanders who, at least from what I have seen, can give as good as he gets.
I suspect 4 more years may become a very real possibility (and I would put myself down as a Democrat)
It will be interesting to see what the polls will say, but I think Trump dominated the debate (sadly) and I suspect some of the undecideds will wonder how Biden will cope with tougher discussions than coping with Trump in a TV studio. I think the Democrats missed a trick by not going with Sanders who, at least from what I have seen, can give as good as he gets.
I suspect 4 more years may become a very real possibility (and I would put myself down as a Democrat)
fesuvious said:
How has the US allowed the situation where two candidates likes this are running?
Well on the Republican side by ignoring the issues that mattered to their core voters until an outsider came along and claimed them. A bit similar to the Tory party and Brexit in that way.The Democrats are more puzzling as you would have thought with an entire party to choose from they could have come up with someone better than Biden. I suppose once the primaries got going it became an "anyone other than Sanders" issue and here we are.
Wallace lost control after 5 minutes. trump ignored the agreed rules and just constantly interrupted or ranted over Biden. Very poor debate because of it
trump lied continuously, but I guess thats just expected now...
all of it is on youtube for anyone who missed it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wW1lY5jFNcQ
CNN comment got it right:
Remember that the President needs these debates to change the dynamic of the race. Because if he doesn't, he is likely to lose (and lose badly) to Joe Biden. I saw absolutely nothing in a torturous 90 minutes that will change anything. Yes, Trump dominated the debate -- but that was because he bullied, interrupted and cajoled both Biden and moderator Chris Wallace at every turn. Sure, that will hearten his strongest supporters. But do you really think they needed a debate performance like this to get excited to vote for him? The interruptions made the debate literally unwatchable. In fact, I found myself repeatedly wondering why anyone who, like me, isn't paid to watch the debate stayed with it for more than about the first 10 minutes.
Wallace, who I have said before is one of the best interviewers in political journalism, lost control of the debate within the first five minutes -- and he never came close to getting it back. The result was a cross-talk shout-fest that ill-served anyone who tried to watch this debacle.
https://us.cnn.com/2020/09/29/politics/first-presi...
According to the Cleveland Clinic, it was a requirement that all guests wear masks. Everyone on Biden’s side of the hall was wearing a mask. More than half on Trump’s side, including his four children, were not wearing masks. Melanie Trump walked in wearing a mask. She removed it as she sat down.
A Cleveland Clinic doctor with masks walked up to a number of unmasked members of the audience on Trump’s side of the room and asked them to put on masks. They refused to take one and wear them.
trump lied continuously, but I guess thats just expected now...
all of it is on youtube for anyone who missed it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wW1lY5jFNcQ
CNN comment got it right:
Remember that the President needs these debates to change the dynamic of the race. Because if he doesn't, he is likely to lose (and lose badly) to Joe Biden. I saw absolutely nothing in a torturous 90 minutes that will change anything. Yes, Trump dominated the debate -- but that was because he bullied, interrupted and cajoled both Biden and moderator Chris Wallace at every turn. Sure, that will hearten his strongest supporters. But do you really think they needed a debate performance like this to get excited to vote for him? The interruptions made the debate literally unwatchable. In fact, I found myself repeatedly wondering why anyone who, like me, isn't paid to watch the debate stayed with it for more than about the first 10 minutes.
Wallace, who I have said before is one of the best interviewers in political journalism, lost control of the debate within the first five minutes -- and he never came close to getting it back. The result was a cross-talk shout-fest that ill-served anyone who tried to watch this debacle.
https://us.cnn.com/2020/09/29/politics/first-presi...
According to the Cleveland Clinic, it was a requirement that all guests wear masks. Everyone on Biden’s side of the hall was wearing a mask. More than half on Trump’s side, including his four children, were not wearing masks. Melanie Trump walked in wearing a mask. She removed it as she sat down.
A Cleveland Clinic doctor with masks walked up to a number of unmasked members of the audience on Trump’s side of the room and asked them to put on masks. They refused to take one and wear them.
Edited by Byker28i on Wednesday 30th September 08:07
Byker28i said:
A Cleveland Clinic doctor with masks walked up to a number of unmasked members of the audience on Trump’s side of the room and asked them to put on masks. They refused to take one and wear them.
That should have been end of it then and there. If agreed rules are not followed someone should have stopped it immediately.928 GTS said:
Byker28i said:
A Cleveland Clinic doctor with masks walked up to a number of unmasked members of the audience on Trump’s side of the room and asked them to put on masks. They refused to take one and wear them.
That should have been end of it then and there. If agreed rules are not followed someone should have stopped it immediately.Journalists give politicians too much free reign to act like self serving, arrogant idiots. They very rarely hold them to account as they claim to do. If a politician refuses to make a sensible attempt to answer then they should tell them to sod off. They say that Paxman is one of the great TV interviewers but I don't think so. The classic demonstration of that is the ridiculous interview he did years back with Michael Howard when Howard refused to answer a question time and time again - I think someone counted it up as being 30+ times. That was pathetic, Howard was playing Paxman and he won. After the third refusal it should have been "Ok, interview over, f
k off back under your rock until you decide to act in a manner commensurate with your position". There is always, always another politician wanting to get his face on the telly and if he behaves in the same way then tell him to fk off too. You won't go through too many before some will realise that it's better for their careers to just answer the bloody questions like grown ups do in the real world. The same should have been true of this debate last night (although, admittedly, it's none of our problem, it's the USA's). If politicians want to behave like children, especially if they agree to a set of conditions and then ignore them, then end the debate and say exactly why you're ending the debate.
Personally, I can't stand these debates and I think it's rather depressing that they've made their way over this side of the pond. They achieve very little, if anything, as far as I can see and are just an argument. I cannot imagine many people changing their views over this type of stuff. It's like Question Time - a completely pointless vehicle for politicians and the BBC to express their egos and try to appear as though they are doing something important for everyone else.
Edited by AJL308 on Wednesday 30th September 10:09
AJL308 said:
Precisely. I think that the pubic gets these types of idiots, on both sides, in part because the people who might be able to exercise some influence over their behaviour don't do so. Politicians require publicity and exposure to survive. Journalists are fond of taking the moral high-ground in claiming that they are in some position of high public trust as the guardians of free speech and bring to account those in public service on behalf of the public but they really aren't and don't in most cases.
Journalists give politicians too much free reign to act like self serving, arrogant idiots. They very rarely hold them to account as they claim to do. If a politician refuses to make a sensible attempt to answer then they should tell them to sod off. They say that Paxman is one of the great TV interviewers but I don't think so. The classic demonstration of that is the ridiculous interview he did years back with Michael Howard when Howard refused to answer a question time and time again - I think someone counted it up as being 30+ times. That was pathetic, Howard was playing Paxman and he won. After the third refusal it should have been "Ok, interview over, fk off back under your rock until you decide to act in a manner commensurate with your position". There is always, always another politician wanting to get his face on the telly and if he behaves in the same way then tell him to fk off too. You won't go through too many before some will realise that it's better for their careers to just answer the bloody questions like grown ups do in the real world.
The same should have been true of this debate last night (although, admittedly, it's none of our problem, it's the USA's). If politicians want to behave like children, especially if they agree to a set of conditions and then ignore them, then end the debate and say exactly why you're ending the debate.
Personally, I can't stand these debates and I think it's rather depressing that they've made their way over this side of the pond. They achieve very little, if anything, as far as I can see and are just an argument. I cannot imagine many people changing their views over this type of stuff. It's like Question Time - a completely pointless vehicle for politicians and the BBC to express their egos and try to appear as though they are doing something important for everyone else.
Isnt it funny how 2 people can see the same thing and have 2 totally different views. Journalists give politicians too much free reign to act like self serving, arrogant idiots. They very rarely hold them to account as they claim to do. If a politician refuses to make a sensible attempt to answer then they should tell them to sod off. They say that Paxman is one of the great TV interviewers but I don't think so. The classic demonstration of that is the ridiculous interview he did years back with Michael Howard when Howard refused to answer a question time and time again - I think someone counted it up as being 30+ times. That was pathetic, Howard was playing Paxman and he won. After the third refusal it should have been "Ok, interview over, f
k off back under your rock until you decide to act in a manner commensurate with your position". There is always, always another politician wanting to get his face on the telly and if he behaves in the same way then tell him to fk off too. You won't go through too many before some will realise that it's better for their careers to just answer the bloody questions like grown ups do in the real world. The same should have been true of this debate last night (although, admittedly, it's none of our problem, it's the USA's). If politicians want to behave like children, especially if they agree to a set of conditions and then ignore them, then end the debate and say exactly why you're ending the debate.
Personally, I can't stand these debates and I think it's rather depressing that they've made their way over this side of the pond. They achieve very little, if anything, as far as I can see and are just an argument. I cannot imagine many people changing their views over this type of stuff. It's like Question Time - a completely pointless vehicle for politicians and the BBC to express their egos and try to appear as though they are doing something important for everyone else.
Edited by AJL308 on Wednesday 30th September 10:09
I thought Paxman effectively ended Howard's political career with that interview.
You saw ut as a Howard win.
ArmaghMan said:
Isnt it funny how 2 people can see the same thing and have 2 totally different views.
I thought Paxman effectively ended Howard's political career with that interview.
.
Well given that Howard later became Tory leader that isn't really the case.I thought Paxman effectively ended Howard's political career with that interview.
.
I doubt it helped him though that is true enough.
ArmaghMan said:
Isnt it funny how 2 people can see the same thing and have 2 totally different views.
I thought Paxman effectively ended Howard's political career with that interview.
You saw ut as a Howard win.
It didn't end his career, he was on the way out anyway. Either way it was ridiculous. He should have been given his marching orders. The exchange was juvenile on both sides. Paxman should have made it clear that this was a discussion between adults and that he is there to get answers out of an elected representative. If the elected representative wants to act like a chid then he should be treated as one and sent to his room with no dinner.I thought Paxman effectively ended Howard's political career with that interview.
You saw ut as a Howard win.
BlackLabel said:
Biden looks like he’s at death’s door
Funny thing being that the expectations of Biden are so low that the mere fact that he got through without having a mental meltdown was hailed as a win by the dems.And to an extent that makes sense - they are running an anyone but Trump campaign, but if Biden had shown definitive signs of cognitive decline in the debate then it would have sown the seeds of doubt in moderates.
Apparently his campaign staff gave Biden 11 days off in September (no public engagements after 10.30am) to make sure he was rested for the debate.
Not surprised a bit by that charade - Was total chaos which will play well to Trump's base. Trump was just arrogant, rude and constantly interrupting, and sadly Biden looked tired and weak in there.
If this is the best "The Leaders of the Free World" can offer, it doesn't look good and I see Trump getting another four years...!
If this is the best "The Leaders of the Free World" can offer, it doesn't look good and I see Trump getting another four years...!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff