The Biden/Trump Debate 2024 - A battle between two political dinosaurs

The American presidential candidates debate that took place on 27 June in Atlanta, Georgia (and very early on Friday morning in Johannesburg) was unprecedented in many ways. First of all, in contrast to all such debates since 1960, the candidates’ combined ages are over a hundred and fifty years — and it seems to have shown in the way the debate proceeded.

Before the debate, it could have been argued all that experience could have been brought to bear on the nation’s choice for president. But then there was President Biden’s wobbly performance and Donald Trump’s unrivalled reputation — on show again — for repeating his lies, falsehoods, made-up facts, and incomprehensible statements at record-setting rates, and his incessant fear-mongering over immigration.

It is also the first time a debate has featured both a former and an incumbent president vying for reelection. Further, this time around, rather than being under the sponsorship of a non-partisan organisation, this debate was held under the direct sponsorship of a single broadcast organisation — CNN.

Moreover, the rules stipulated there would be no live audience (and thus no roisterous, partisan gawkers, booers, cheerers, whistlers and the like), there were microphone cutoffs when a candidate was speaking out of turn, and there was to be rigorous adherence to allotted time slots. Oh, and no stalking or leering of the other contestant — sorry, candidate — when he was trying to make his points.

And finally, this would be the first debate ever in which neither candidate had actually already been formally nominated by their respective party convention because it was scheduled so early in the campaign. But, in the absence of any alternatives in their respective parties, the two men are the candidates even if some voters, dubbed “double haters” are unhappy with the choice they have. After this debate performance, that number may well rise.

This debate (and presumably a second one that is scheduled to come after the nominating conventions) evolved out of a challenge issued by the presumed Republican Party challenger and former president, Donald Trump, to the incumbent, President Joe Biden, that he would debate the president anywhere, any time, and embraced by Democrats. The two candidates’ organisations then hammered out the actual arrangements without regard for the non-partisan committee already planning its debate schedule. As a result, the two sides agreed this debate would take place the evening of the 27th of June on CNN in their Atlanta studios.

The moderators were the team of CNN anchors Jake Tapper and Dana Bash as questioners and enforcers of the agreed-upon rules. (Inevitably, Trump has already been complaining the two moderators are actually Democrats and thus suspect and biased both — and that they will run the whole programme like a media show put on by the so-called “Deep State”.

As usual in the course of these things, I got up at the ridiculously early hour of two thirty in the morning on Friday the 28th to watch it live and thus imbibe the frisson of watching for the unexpected, rather than watching a rerun or just excerpts — along with an unending supply of very strong coffee.

Signs advertising the presidential debate hosted by CNN are seen outside of their studios in Atlanta, Georgia. 25 June 2024. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

Debate build-up

Over this past week, American-based newspapers, television news channels, and online media have been filled with thoughts by the commentariat about what this clash means for the chances of the two men vying for the same job, what dangers and opportunities lurk in the way they will handle this clash, and advice to them both about how to frame, shape and sharpen their arguments and rebuttals — as well as topics to be avoided — or embraced — for maximum effect with the audience watching on television screens around the world. (Inevitably, perhaps a majority of voters will only watch selected bits from the entire programme, sent out on social media or reprised in various newscasts.)

And, of course, there has been all manner of advice to the two men about how to handle pitfalls relevant to the psychological makeup of their respective competitor — including cautions about Trump’s inclination to launch into ill-tempered word salad and personal abuse and Biden’s presumed inability to frame an argument cogently, and crisply — and without those flashes of anger he is sometimes given to showing. Further, the media has been overflowing with ideas of how Biden should respond to any attacks about his unfortunate son’s legal troubles and his own age and presumed growing frailty.

There has similarly been speculation on just how much this debate will ultimately figure into the way voters reach their many millions of individual decisions about which candidate they will vote for, come November. Part of that question revolves around the fact that this debate is coming so early in the actual campaign schedule, with many voters slowing down or going on summer vacations and clicking off from politics. There is also speculation that by this point, the number of voters who have yet to make up their minds about these two well-recognised men is a small fraction of the total electorate.

Further, analysts have noted that polling has highlighted a reality that the key issues for many (perhaps most) voters are immigration, consumer prices and the presumed economic malaise, crime, and women’s reproductive rights. So far at least, Trump’s varied legal troubles — including the fact he is the first presidential candidate from a major party ever to be a convicted felon — along with the war in Ukraine and the conflict in Gaza have had a relatively lower impact on the larger universe of voter choice. Still, any of those factors could well change by the time of the election in November, depending on actual circumstances, rather than a pseudo-reality cooked up by campaign strategists.

All this is prologue — or the landscape — for the actual debate that took place. And so it came to pass, that there I was on the sofa in our study, the television on, the online commentary streaming, and large gouts of extremely strong coffee on hand as I settled in with an astonished cat wondering why I was up so early to watch the actual debate so I could answer the obvious and less obvious questions about what transpired. These questions ranged from who was deemed to have won, which issues were raised or deflected, who gave the best account of a man in charge of his ideas and emotions, and who lapsed first into a spluttering word salad or gave vent to ill-tempered, petulant responses.

Supporters of US President Joe Biden attend a watch party for the CNN Presidential debate in Atlanta, Georgia, US. 27 June 2024. (Photo: EPA-EFE/Edward M Pio Roda)

Rhetoric battleground

One key question was clearly in the minds of many. As Michelle Cottle of the New York Times wrote the other day, “Unfortunately for Mr. Biden, a huge chunk of Americans feel that he has tipped over the line from elder statesman to elderly statesman. That shift is hard to come back from. The debate stage will provide perhaps his biggest opportunity to prove himself, but TV appearances — especially extended, unscripted ones — are laden with peril as well.”

In prior months, Trump and his hoplites had been describing the incumbent president as increasingly decrepit and incapable of serving as an effective president, thereby setting up a low bar. But in recent weeks they have started to talk up Biden’s capabilities although they have also, with absolutely no evidence, insisted Biden will go into the debate hopped up on drugs designed to give him a high for the night, or, as Trump offered in his suave, mature way, someone will give Biden a “shot in the ass” with an upper. Political rhetoric has rarely been so well delivered or carefully nuanced.

The modern presidential candidates debate tradition goes back to 1960 in the contest between John F Kennedy and Richard Nixon. The former was a Democratic senator from Massachusetts while the latter was the incumbent Republican vice president.

On the television screen, Kennedy looked poised, energetic, telegenic, and healthy (courtesy of some days of practice at a Florida beach house compound.) Nixon, by contrast, eschewed the usual TV makeup, and looked pale and sickly as he sweated through the debate. Campaign strategists have taken note of these things, realising the presentation of the candidate was at least as important as what he or she would say. (Interestingly, people who listened on the radio, contrary to television watchers, believed Nixon was the victor of that 1960 meeting.)

Another lesson learned from the various debates that followed has been that a well-chosen one-liner, a gentle joke with a barbed steel core is also crucial. This was true with an older Ronald Reagan put down the somewhat younger Walter Mondale in 1984, quipping that he would not take advantage of Mondale’s relative youth and inexperience in their debate.

Looking back further in history, the first real candidates debate took place in the 1858 senate race in Illinois between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas. The latter won the election, but the quality of Lincoln’s rhetoric and articulation brought him national recognition and glory in the 1860 presidential election where he was elected as the Republican Party’s first successful presidential candidate.

And so the 2024 presidential debate began. How did it shape up? It didn’t take more than a few minutes before Donald Trump started in on his familiar tropes about how Joe Biden has had the worst administration in history, how he has destroyed the economy, allowed millions and millions of illegal immigrants (aka killers and rapists) to come into the country, and has transformed the United States into a third world nation and a laughing stock throughout the world. It didn’t take long for Trump to reach that old song.

Segues and sidesteps

After a rambling, confusing discourse on abortion, the debate moved on to the illegal immigration/undocumented aliens issue. The Biden response was less than stellar, but then Trump launched into the inevitable “Terrorists are pouring in across the border…. They are killing our people, our citizens…. We are an uncivilised country now”. Then, Trump, challenged on the statement he would deport millions, managed to avoid the question entirely.

We then moved on to what Trump did or didn’t say at a military cemetery — the infamous “suckers and losers” quote. In a quick and astounding segue, Donald Trump managed to slip in a side comment on the Hunter Biden laptop, the inevitable dog whistle to the Maga crowd. Asked about Vladimir Putin’s claim he would only accept a settlement if Russia keeps the territory conquered, Trump once again segued to the debacle in Kabul as a goad to Putin to invade Ukraine, and for Iran to do its worst, and for Hamas to attack Israel.  Trump says, “I will have that war [Ukraine] settled while I am still president-elect.”

And aside: This debate has only begun and I think we are already drowning in this rhetorical drainage system.

US President Joe Biden, right, and former US President Donald Trump during the first presidential debate in Atlanta, Georgia, US. 27 June 2024. (Photo: Eva Marie Uzcategui/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Middle East and domestic conflict

Moving on to the Middle East, with the question of the remaining American hostages held by Hamas and bringing the ongoing conflict to an end, Biden outlined the overall plan to bring the crisis to an end and he underscored the continuing support for Israel even though there restrictions on large blockbuster bombs. The Trump response was to restate how the US is paying most of the cost for Ukraine and that the US should allow Israel to finish the job vis-a-vis Hamas. Whoa, that one was slipped in there quietly.

Shifting to the 6 January 2021 events, Trump repeated how great the country was and how respected it was, thereby avoiding the question of violating his presidential oath. He then repeated the canards the police escorted the insurrectionists into the Capitol, how he had offered National Guard troops to protect the Capitol and that had been turned down by the Washington mayor and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi in order to prevent the riot that ensued. Meanwhile, Trump announced that the Select Committee of Congress that had investigated the riot should all go to jail. And just recall that the question ostensibly was about the defence of democracy. Asked about Trump’s vow to carry out retribution against his political enemies, the challenger went on to accuse Joe Biden of being a criminal “and I did nothing wrong.” Soon enough, per the president, we dove into the gutter commenting about Trump’s sexual liaison with a porn star.

The questioning then moved on to how well the incumbent administration did in improving the circumstances of black families in America. Biden inventoried the measures taken to improve such circumstances, even though inflation continues to cause difficulty.

Economy and immigration

But surprise, surprise, Trump then blamed everything on the inflation caused by the current administration, what with food prices doubling, tripling, even quadrupling from all those climate and green money scams. And, of course, it is all about the border and those illegal immigrants stealing black and Hispanic jobs. Trump has painted himself as the defender of black and Hispanic Americans. And that was in response to a question about the climate crisis. As Trump said, “And I had the best environmental numbers ever…. I got rid of the Paris climate accord because we were the only ones paying for it.” And just by the way, those illegals are going to wreck pollution controls, per Trump. Again.

And he went on to say that Joe Biden is a liar on everything. And as far as Social Security and Medicare, they are in crisis because of the illegal immigrants. It is increasingly obvious that is the only note he will strike. Repeatedly. But the question remains whether that note will resonate effectively with voters.

And inevitably, as the debate went on, we are back to how Joe Biden is wrecking the nation and how he will raise everyone’s taxes by four times. That is the while we are listening to how many economists or historians like or dislike either of the two men. Oh just by the way, we moved on to Trump accusing Biden of being paid by China, of being the Manchurian candidate. “China is going to own us.” Somewhere in there was a question about the opioid crisis. Never mind, it is the fault of those 18 million illegal migrants.

The moderators have moved on to voter concerns about the respective candidates and their capacity to serve as president. Biden reacted by saying that for years he was chided about being the youngest person in politics and noted the 15 million new jobs and growing industrial investment. We are a trusted nation. For Trump, he said he aced two cognitive tests and won some club golf championships. “I feel I am in as good a shape as I was thirty years ago.” So now we are into boasting about golf handicaps and who carries whose club bag. Ugh.

Regarding whether he would accept the results of the election if it were free and fair, Trump argued, “Biden indicted me because I was his opponent…. We’re a failing nation because of him. His military policies are insane. He will drive us into World War 3 and he is driving us there.” Ukraine is losing its cities. Oh, and the fraud the last time around, we’ll have a news conference about it next week. This man is so infuriating in the way he baits and switches topics, opinions and evidence plucked from thin air. But it seems to work with many.

Taxation and… immigration

Gasp, gasp, we have finally stumbled into the closing statements. For Biden, the focus is on making the tax system fairer, especially at the higher end. In reality, a Trump administration would make everything more expensive with a 10% tariff on all imported goods. Our administration brought down the cost of insulin across the board, and we will deal with the cost of child care and so on.

Trump argued Biden has simply made the country weaker because of illegal migrants “and we have been living in hell. The whole country is exploding because of you.” And we have done great things for the military and now “we are a failing nation”.

Oh dear God, that was horrible.

There really should have been nothing like having two seasoned politicians going head to head — with no intermediation from advisors, analysts, strategists, and spin doctors on the stage with them. Among Democrats especially, after this debate, there is almost certainly a rising sense of panic about the president’s far less than stellar performance. The commentators have already gone on to fight it out in the spin room and then, still later, in newspaper columns, on-air commentaries and social media over who carried the evening — especially given the incumbent president’s performance and the utter destruction to the fact-checking machine from Trump’s statements.

Of course, the final say will come from the voters, but after Thursday night’s performance, there is no sense of satisfaction among Democratic Party fundraisers, officeholders, and supporters over the president’s performance and a growing fear about what lies ahead. Going forward, the Democrats’ intra-party debate will commence about how Vice President Kamala Harris should be deployed in the rest of the campaign. DM