US presidential debate: From 'worst in memory' to 'depressing spectacle', media trashes Trump-Biden face-off

The first debate between President Donald Trump and Democratic challenger Joe Biden, a tumultuous affair that saw bitter insults being slung by the incumbent, received an overwhelmingly negative marks from the US press. Some called the clash the ‘worst presidential debate in living memory’ while others focussed on the cross-talk and confusion that took place on the stage. Trump needed to put in a performance that would upend the race between him and Biden, especially as the latter is not only ahead in national polls but is also making inroad with white voters in battleground states of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Which, all of them concluded, did not happen. Writing for the  Washington Post, columnist Dan Balz minced no words, “No one alive has ever seen a presidential debate like Tuesday night’s unseemly shout fest between President Trump and former vice-president Joe Biden — 90 minutes of invective, interruptions and personal insults. It was an insult to the public as well, and a sad example of the state of American democracy five weeks before the election.” Balz added that the debate began as it ended: with Trump pressing his argument, sans evidence, that mail ballots are riddled with fraud and would thus render the election invalid. “Partisans will call winners and losers as they see them, and those judgments will be predictable. Collectively, this was not a night when the country could claim victory. Instead, it was quite the opposite,” Balz grimly concluded. In The New York Times, Matt Flegenheimer and Maggie Haberman, penned an article entitled Of course, the debate was always going to be about Trump. “Trump did for the Tuesday debate what he has done for the political life of the country in his four years: supply as much rampaging volume, custom-busting obtrusion and outright inaccuracy as necessary to impose his will on the proceedings. He declined to condemn white supremacy and let fly dark conspiracies about the voting process,” Flegenheimer and Haberman wrote. The piece, in the newspaper Trump has often derided as “fake news and failing”, noted the basic tension at the core of Trump’s reelection bid": Can undecided Americans, however many there are, be swayed by a Commander-In-Chief whose personal behaviour and threadbare credibility have already disappointed wide swaths of voters he needs?" “In a campaign already so far removed from the bounds of the regular — a pandemic, a generational protest movement, a sitting president accusing his opponent of mainlining performance-enhancing drugs — the mere sight of an engagement scheduled in the before-times was in some ways most disorienting of all,” the analysis piece in the Grey Lady observed. Staff writer Janet Hook, writing in the Los Angeles Times, noted that Trump failed to change the dynamics of the race despite “a remarkable display of invective and interruption.” “Beyond the cross-talk and crossfire, the night’s exchanges illustrated the strengths and weaknesses of the two candidates’ campaigns,” Hook wrote.  “Trump, with his loud voice and forceful presence, dominated the debate stage as he has dominated and remade American politics over the last four years. But his scattershot attacks on Biden failed to stick to any one line of argument.” Much like his campaign, Biden’s performance at the debate was dominated by his anti-Trump message, she added.. “That approach has its downside: Any voter who wanted to know more about what Biden would do as president likely came away somewhat disappointed,” Hook wrote. “But the Biden campaign figures he will be on stronger ground framing the election as a referendum on Trump.” Renee Graham, writing for the The Boston Globe, spoke for many (at least on social media) when she described the event as a national embarrassment. Graham, from the outset, came out swinging. “For 90 minutes, it was POTUS interruptus. Trump steamrolled an overmatched Fox News anchor Chris Wallace, who pretty much lost the reins as moderator shortly after introducing himself. Trump’s strategy was simple: ignore Wallace’s directives to respect Biden’s speaking time, yammer well beyond his own allotted minutes, and lie like there’s no tomorrow."

Graham compared the event to watching a debate between “a functioning adult and a tornado of feral cats.”

Graham further pondered whether debates actually held sway over voters and expounded that if they did, said that Elizabeth Warren would probably be the Democratic nominee. “Only those who decided not to watch the debate were winners. With democracy on the precipice, America lost,” Graham, striking a dark note, concluded. The Wall Street Journal editorial board_ ,_ comparing the event to a WWE spectacle, wrote that it was a “…spectacle of insults, interruptions, endless cross-talk, exaggerations and flat-out lies even by the lying standards of current US politics. Our guess is that millions of Americans turned away after 30 minutes, and we would have turned away too if we didn’t do this for a living.” “The president bounced from subject to subject so frequently that it was hard to figure out what he hoped to say beyond that Joe Biden is controlled by the Democratic left. Even when moderator Chris Wallace asked a question that played to the strengths of his record — such as on the economy — Trump couldn’t stick to the theme without leaping to attack Biden,” the board wrote. The board noted that neither man emerged from the spectacle with a win, but Biden did pass the test of appearing coherent for 90 minutes. “Trump had done him the favour of calling his mental capacity into question for months, so expectations were low. Biden passed that bar, albeit in highly scripted fashion,” the board noted wryly. The WSJ, noting that the vice-presidential debate was set for next week, expressed the hope that  “one of them will act like a president.” Only time will tell if that wish comes true.