Twenty-four hours after the word “panic” appeared on television screens, MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell provides what he calls “calm analysis” of the first presidential debate of the 2024 election.
» Subscribe to MSNBC: https://www.youtube.com/msnbc
Download our new MSNBC app for the latest breaking news and daily headlines at a glance: https://www.msnbc.com/information/download-msnbc-app-n1241692
Follow MSNBC Show Blogs
MaddowBlog: https://www.msnbc.com/maddowblog
ReidOut Blog: https://www.msnbc.com/reidoutblog
MSNBC delivers breaking news, in-depth analysis of politics headlines, as well as commentary and informed perspectives. Find video clips and segments from The Rachel Maddow Show, Morning Joe, The Beat with Ari Melber, Deadline: White House, The ReidOut, All In, Last Word, 11th Hour, and Alex Wagner who brings her breadth of reporting experience to MSNBC primetime. Watch “Alex Wagner Tonight” Tuesday through Friday at 9pm Eastern.
Connect with MSNBC Online
Visit msnbc.com: https://www.msnbc.com/
Subscribe to the MSNBC Daily Newsletter: https://link.msnbc.com/join/5ck/msnbc-daily-signup
Find MSNBC on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/msnbc/
Follow MSNBC on Twitter: https://twitter.com/MSNBC
Follow MSNBC on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/msnbc
#Biden #Trump #PresidentialDebate
“Last night in Donald Trump’s first debate appearance since January 6th, the debate moderators did not ask him what the January 6th committee very much wanted to ask him, what were you doing for those 187 minutes?”
“Instead … the very first question to Donald Trump was:”
CNN: You want to impose a 10% tariff on all goods coming into the U.S. How will you ensure that that doesn’t drive prices even higher?’
I really hope that there weren’t many burgeoning conservatives hearing Donald Trump speak for the first time, but I’m not sure how likely that is. For everyone else he’s a known quantity. His performance was more or less like his historical performances although for Trump it was probably the worst he’s ever performed while being more vulnerable than he ever has been (which could only have been irrelevant in this context). His base liked it, everyone else thinks he’s a psycho, and Republican voters are just going to vote for the Republican regardless.
I’m seeing a lot of people upset that the moderators didn’t do a better job debating Donald Trump. Joe Biden was supposed to debate Donald Trump, and he was not up to the task. He rebutted many of Trump’s lies and said many things that would probably have been effective if he had the energy he had even 4 years ago, but it didn’t matter because he could hardly get words out and looked terrified most of the time. Worse still, many of the things he did say which were understandable were word salad (contrasted to Trump who speaks so fluently in word salad his base doesn’t notice). The thing is though, most democrats already knew Biden was this bad and are deliberately obfuscating to others and perhaps even themselves this fact even now. No one who was going to vote against Trump is going to change their vote just because it got way more difficult to be dishonest about the Joe Biden’s abilities for 90 minutes. Biden is really irrelevant to this election anyway, it’s still about whether or not we want Trump in office.
What seems to me was most relevant about this debate is that we have reached a new low which is strikingly obvious to everyone paying attention who isn’t pursuing their political party’s interests above even their own. We have never had a debate which was almost totally unintelligible from beginning to end like this one was. I can’t guess what the effect of that might be.
I think it’s a question of how you see the debate. What it is, or should be. Is it between the two candidates, and moderators merely give it structure? Or is it a debate with an expectation of truth and trustworthiness, fulfilling the press code, where the moderators would have to at least point out lies or ask for clarifications?
A debate between two candidates has its value, but we can’t deny it strengthens Trumps position as an apparently to many people charismatic liar. Between only two people it’s about who is more charismatic and convincing, not about truthfulness, verifiability. All of those only go as far as the other candidate can establish them.
If many citizens watch only the debate, is that enough to inform them / base their voting [or omission thereof] on?
In the end, it may be understandable to wish for moderators to point out lies. It can be irritating and frustrating to see lies on a podium finding success, without successful, conclusive rebuttal. But that’s not the moderators’ place in the show format as it is.
I really hope that there weren’t many burgeoning conservatives hearing Donald Trump speak for the first time, but I’m not sure how likely that is. For everyone else he’s a known quantity. His performance was more or less like his historical performances although for Trump it was probably the worst he’s ever performed while being more vulnerable than he ever has been (which could only have been irrelevant in this context). His base liked it, everyone else thinks he’s a psycho, and Republican voters are just going to vote for the Republican regardless.
I’m seeing a lot of people upset that the moderators didn’t do a better job debating Donald Trump. Joe Biden was supposed to debate Donald Trump, and he was not up to the task. He rebutted many of Trump’s lies and said many things that would probably have been effective if he had the energy he had even 4 years ago, but it didn’t matter because he could hardly get words out and looked terrified most of the time. Worse still, many of the things he did say which were understandable were word salad (contrasted to Trump who speaks so fluently in word salad his base doesn’t notice). The thing is though, most democrats already knew Biden was this bad and are deliberately obfuscating to others and perhaps even themselves this fact even now. No one who was going to vote against Trump is going to change their vote just because it got way more difficult to be dishonest about the Joe Biden’s abilities for 90 minutes. Biden is really irrelevant to this election anyway, it’s still about whether or not we want Trump in office.
What seems to me was most relevant about this debate is that we have reached a new low which is strikingly obvious to everyone paying attention who isn’t pursuing their political party’s interests above even their own. We have never had a debate which was almost totally unintelligible from beginning to end like this one was. I can’t guess what the effect of that might be.
If our system had an option for “none of the above, find new candidates and try again” it would be leading.
I’m sure the Romans were used to seeing performance like this from their leaders towards the end, too.
On a more serious note, thank you for pointing out that the debate was supposed to be between Biden and Trump, not CNN and Trump.
I think it’s a question of how you see the debate. What it is, or should be. Is it between the two candidates, and moderators merely give it structure? Or is it a debate with an expectation of truth and trustworthiness, fulfilling the press code, where the moderators would have to at least point out lies or ask for clarifications?
A debate between two candidates has its value, but we can’t deny it strengthens Trumps position as an apparently to many people charismatic liar. Between only two people it’s about who is more charismatic and convincing, not about truthfulness, verifiability. All of those only go as far as the other candidate can establish them.
If many citizens watch only the debate, is that enough to inform them / base their voting [or omission thereof] on?
In the end, it may be understandable to wish for moderators to point out lies. It can be irritating and frustrating to see lies on a podium finding success, without successful, conclusive rebuttal. But that’s not the moderators’ place in the show format as it is.
Disclaimer: I haven’t watched it.