Now, about last Thursday's debate.
Wow!
(I wrote this column right after the debate, I just had to get my feelings out.)
Last Tuesday morning, I got a call from a longtime political activist in Iowa who was interviewed by a cable news channel and asked me if I'd be interested in joining a subcommittee of voters who would give their opinion on the upcoming presidential debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump.
Initially, I was in favor of reviewing the outside media policy and getting involved. My lip sometimes quirks when I see who the cable news channels find for their street interviews and panels of “average voters.” I can't say I'm the most average person, but hey, I'm better than some idiot from Stanwood who wears a ten-gallon hat and calls himself a political genius.
My tentative plan was thwarted when producers told me they were trying to gauge whether anyone at the debate had decided to vote for either candidate by polling undecided voters before and after Thursday night's debate.
I had to be honest with my producers: I'm not an undecided presidential voter. I admit I'm less enthusiastic than I once was, but I'm not conflicted. I know exactly how I'm going to vote in November.
No, I don’t expect any shocking revelations to come to light in the next four months that will change my mind. That is, if nothing else has happened during this election cycle to dissuade me, it’s that…
Sorry, I tried to find the words to finish that last sentence but I was laughing the whole time behind my computer screen.
The vast majority of Iowa voters for Biden and Trump demonstrated the same attitude I did before the debate: that their minds were made up. The latest Iowa Poll, on June 17, showed that half of Iowa voters would vote for Donald Trump if the election were held that day. Of those who voted for Trump, 76% said their choice was solid. Fewer than a third of Iowa voters supported incumbent Joe Biden, but 81% of Biden voters said they were going to bet on the big guy.
(Now that Thursday night's debate is over, I'd like to see another poll that asks the same question: “How confident are you about your candidate?” If you watched the debate, you'll know why I'm interested.)
Let's assume that the confidence levels from the June 17 poll hold true nationwide. If the Iowa numbers hold true nationally, then about 64% of American voters had made up their minds before the debate even began. Most of us probably didn't need to watch the debate.
But we were dying to see it: An Associated Press poll released last Wednesday, the day before the debate, found that 64% of American adults said they would tune in to watch at least some of the live broadcast. (Viewer ratings for the debate had not yet been released by the print deadline for this column.)
Apparently, a significant number of us aren't watching TV to help inform our decisions. This isn't necessarily surprising: Voters don't feel the need for it as much as they did for the first televised presidential debate in 1960, between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon.
In 1960, Americans relied almost exclusively on print newspapers and magazines, AM and FM radio, and scheduled television news broadcasts for information about elections. Campaign solicitations were made door-to-door and through telephone numbers that real people called. Television election advertising had only begun eight years earlier.
24-hour cable news wouldn't exist for another 20 years. The internet hadn't yet been invented. People didn't carry little broadcasting devices in their pockets or purses to stay up to date on the latest crazy thing someone said or did. Social media wasn't inundated with political ads, and people didn't get spam texts and emails 37 times a day from campaigns and political action committees.
At the time, the presidential debates were not only a useful tool for getting to know the candidates and their positions, but also the only way to learn about the policy positions of both candidates and to thoroughly scrutinize those positions (and the candidates themselves). Today, with a never-ending barrage of information, multiple means of communication, and a constant stream of spin machines… it's no wonder that many people are bored with politics.
Many people now watch the debates primarily to see the candidates themselves, and especially “the other candidate,” being criticized. It's now primarily a spectator sport, with presidential debates being like mini-Super Bowls. People who are interested in politics eagerly watch the debates to support their favorite candidate and to see the other candidate fail. Some even post a series of updates throughout the debate, posting their reaction to everything that's said.
Many people wear campaign T-shirts and throw debate-watching parties, including your friendly neighborhood opinion columnist. I walked into a big room full of other party-loving pachyderms to watch Thursday's debate. We passed around a debate-watching bingo card and marked off various situations, such as when Trump was called a felon, when Biden threw “word salad,” when Jake Tapper was mocked, and so on. (Moderators Jake Tapper and CNN's Dana Bash hosted the debate very well.)
If the euphoric atmosphere at my rally was any indication, the Elephant Party was pretty pleased with Trump's performance, and if the mood of MSNBC pundits is anything to go by, Biden's stumbling performance left the Donkey Party feeling as optimistic as Eeyore and as calm as a stunned goat.
In fact, Biden's overall performance surprised me. Perhaps expectations were so low from the start that overcoming them was enough to earn him a gold star — at least in the eyes of those who haven't spent the past year constantly dismissing the president's cognitive abilities.
But he pulled through, and it's tempting to joke, “Give me that glass of juice they gave him.” But honestly, I'm more interested to know what magic potion the president's campaign staff, Democrats, and all his pundits, from center to left, have taken to calm their jittery nerves.
While political debates have degenerated into a largely spectator sport, where the winner doesn't take home a trophy or even bragging rights for the rest of the season, the prize of winning a debate is momentum, the advantage of a tailwind that keeps a campaign on its way to the finish line.
That energy can be misleading when the finish line is so far away. The June 27 debate, set after Biden challenged Trump to two debates in a closed studio where the moderator could turn off the microphone, came nearly three months earlier than any general election cycle in history.
The Biden campaign also pushed for the debate to be held early so that it could take place before early voting begins, which in some states begins 46 days before the general election.
But some might argue that the campaign had an incentive to get a flailing candidate on stage early, in front of the public before he flared up completely. Biden's lackluster performance on Thursday did little to disprove that notion.
I've considered the theory that, at the very least, some campaign and party insiders were trying to push a fading president in front of the public well before the Democratic National Convention, to scare the party's base into finally acknowledging what we've been saying for months, and that the party was desperately trying to come up with a way to replace Biden as the party's nominee. A quick look at Google Trends shows that the search term “candidate replacement” reached its peak popularity between 10 and 10:30 p.m. on the Thursday after the debate ended.
That's unlikely, but there's no denying it was a very bad night for Joe Biden and the Democratic Party while the rest of the American public watched with popcorn, bingo cards, and possibly dangerous drinking games.
Nothing is normal in 2024. With 128 days until the election, the road is tough. Debates are a sport, politics are a game, and time will run out when the polls close on Election Day. Whoever is declared the winner will make history. And Americans will have a front row seat to witness it.
Comments: 319-398-8266; althea.cole@thegazette.com
Opinion content represents the views of the author or The Gazette Editorial Board. Join the conversation by submitting a letter to the editor or a guest column, or suggesting an editorial topic at editorial@thegazette.com.
