As President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump arrive in Atlanta for a presidential debate at CNN tonight, here is what other media are saying:
Jason L. Riley at the Wall Street Journal:
“Will Thursday be an inflection point? Mr. Trump was eager to debate, but Mr. Biden was reluctant—until he got his terms. These included no studio audience, no third-party candidates, a friendly host (CNN), and microphones that can be muted if a candidate speaks out of turn. Now it’s up to the president to replicate his widely praised State of the Union performance from March, but without the teleprompter.”
Frank Luntz at the New York Times:
“And it’s not just the candidate’s personal performance that leaves an impression. Sometimes forces that are less visible, like the debate rules, play a major role in determining the outcome. The length of time given to respond to questions from the moderator can reward or punish candidates, depending on their individual styles and ability to communicate succinctly.”
E.J. Dionne at The Washington Post:
“Trump needs to energize more voters, constrain himself to look reasonable, hide his love of conspiracy theories and not make the debate about himself. Count me as skeptical that he can pull all this off.”
Seth Masket at the Los Angeles Times:
“Biden proposed it for strategic campaign purposes. For one thing, by limiting the debate to just him and Trump, and by going around the commission, Biden may well have avoided Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s participation, which could have elevated the independent candidate’s stature and taken votes away from the president. Biden might well be hoping for a repeat of his State of the Union address in March, where he benefited from a strong performance following low expectations and effectively silenced some critics.”
The Bangor Daily News Editorial Board:
“The bar for Thursday’s debate is pathetically low. Biden should not be seen as a confused doddering old man. Trump shouldn’t come off as an uninformed and undisciplined bully.
“America deserves better. As Detroit News editorial page editor Nolan Finley wrote in a recent column, a presidential debate should be about ideas, especially ideas for truly making America better.”
Jeff Shesol at the New York Times:
“Mr. Trump will be unalterably himself: nasty, relentless, brazenly dishonest. The real variable is his opponent, who forever seems one stumble away from oblivion. But the risk is worth taking; clearly, the Biden team feels that something must be done to shake things up.”
Craig Lamay at The Hill:
“Debates reveal candidates’ views and positions in a way no other event or presidential campaign does, including speeches, rallies and advertisements. Even after the bar-fight style first debate of 2020, some of the editorial commentary about what voters saw that night made exactly that point. What critics miss is that the choice has never been between ideal debates and less ideal debates, but between debates and no debates.”
Nicole Russell at USA Today:
“Let’s be real: Neither one of them really knows what he’s talking about. Both need notes and teleprompters and dozens of aides to make any lick of sense.
“Perhaps it’s not fair to politicians − or us − that we expect our presidential candidates to be charismatic and genuine, confident but humble, a genius but an everyman. But times are hard, and the public’s expectations are high. As they should be. (Cry more, as the kids say.)”
Andrew Reeves at the Tampa Bay Times:
“... [A]t the debates, both candidates are likely to speak of their economic records and make promises about what they would do in a second term. But the economy is a complicated picture. Unemployment is low, the stock market is doing well, and inflation may be under control. Consumer confidence is on the rise, but that shift has not translated to a more favorable view of Biden. That may be because grocery prices have not fallen, and so higher prices are on voters’ minds. According to Gallup polling, the high cost of living is far and away Americans’ most pressing financial concern.
“Voters tend to blame the incumbent president and his party for economic troubles. Credit for the good times doesn’t always flow the same way. Shouldn’t history tell us whether presidents are responsible for the direction of the economy? While some studies have found that the economy performs better under Democratic administrations, one study concluded that the partisan differences in economic performance did not stem from different policy approaches but rather from factors such as oil shocks, growth of defense spending and stronger economic growth abroad.”
Jonah Goldberg at the Los Angeles Times:
“… [A] debate, with its tendency to amplify style over substance, could matter more this time. Big debate moments occasionally arise from well-placed one-liners, but more often they involve unintentional factors such as gaffes, body language and even sighs. The takeaway from presidential debates tends not to be a policy position or plan but rather a comfort level with the idea of a person being in our faces for four more years.
“That’s a fairly stupid standard for choosing a president. But these are stupid times.”
“Sure, there’s an outsized possibility that Biden will land a knockout blow or Trump will implode on stage. However, it won’t make a difference come November. The election will be won through policy proposals that address real concerns of Americans, not through soundbites, viral moments, or newly minted nicknames.”
