Well, I watched the whole damn thing (or at least I lay in bed with my eyes closed and listened to it, or rather I listened to most of it – my wife listened to all of it but there were times when I just had to get out of the room for a while.) What is my takeaway aside from the fact that I am cross-eyed with the lack of sleep? It is simple: Biden won big. Why do I say that? Because he did not lose. He is solidly ahead in all of the polls. Trump needed to change the dynamic of the race and he failed to do that. I predict that in the days to come we will see very little in the way of changes in the polls. At the moment roughly 1.6 million votes have been cast. By the time the next debate is scheduled to occur, it is estimated that 30 million votes will have been cast. The major threat is not a late October move by Trump but instead a legal and extralegal assault on the legitimacy of the vote ending up, or so Trump hopes, in the Supreme Court. Here I’m going out on a limb, but I doubt that a majority of the Justices would vote to overturn a clear Biden victory. Since I lived through the Bush Gore fiasco, this is more an expression of my native optimism than a solid judgment based on precedent. Happily, the Biden campaign is well aware of this threat and is doing what it can to prepare for it.
We were incredibly lucky last night that Trump put on the
show that he did. Biden was a mediocre debater when you could hear him and if
he had been faced by a serious and well-prepared opponent he might have come
off quite badly but that did not happen.
Thirty-four days to go.
I’ve read about 15 reviews of the debate by a variety of political pundits and journalists, even those who have supported Republicans (e.g., Gergen) and the consensus is that Biden won and that Trump pretty much self-destructed. And I think Biden did better than people give him credit for. I have argued numerous times in appellate courts, and its is very difficult to keep all of the facts and law in one’s head and give lucid and cogent answers as you are being peppered with questions. In a political debate, the candidate has to have a grasp on a far broader range of policy issues and facts, and give succinct answers to difficult questions. It is even more difficult when you are being deliberately interrupted and insulted by your opponent. If they happened in a courtroom, the opposing lawyer with be threatened with being held in contempt, something Wallace could not do. It is even more difficult when your opponent feels that s/he is not being constrained by the truth, and you are.
ReplyDeleteFor me, and other commentators I have read, the starkest moment occurred when Trump called out for the Proud Boys to “stand by.” This was a call out to his Brown Shirts to be prepared to take to the streets. I stand by my previous comments that Trump is becoming our Hitler.
MS
I agree with this completely and of course I have no experience whatsoever in arguing in a court of law.
ReplyDeleteI imagine many of those who come to this site have seen the reviews at https://electoral-vote.com/
ReplyDeleteFor me, the point that really got me was trump's reaction when the word "smart" was challengingly directed at his policies. It realy seemed to hit him where it hurt.
I agree with that assessment, I think. While there was nothing standout about Biden's performance, Trump's was abysmal.
ReplyDeleteOf the more poignant takes on the debate, a Twitter user said previous Trump debate performances, though no more coherent, at least had a touch of humor to them. There was no humor last night--only unpleasant rancor and desperation.
One moment gave me pause. When railing against Antifascist Action, Trump quipped to Biden "If you're not careful, they'll overthrow you too". Of course, this could be read as Trump saying overthrow Biden as Democratic nominee or as a party leader. But I got the impression it was a slip on Trump's part, and that some part of him believes he will lose. Interesting if so, considering his usual bravado.
At any rate, I doubt the race will be much changed. Those who support Trump will see his aggressiveness as a victory in the face of "hostile moderation" and a "sleepy opponent". Those who support Biden will see his comparatively calm demeanor and lucid answers as more presidential. And we on the left will continue shaking our heads and despairing that neither have vision enough to tackle this moment's crises.
So because of Biden's good enough performance last night, we just might have been able to kick christian-dominionist-fascist America down the road 4 or so years.
ReplyDeleteWe should know this: If the misery, meaninglessness and feelings of impotence of most Americans are not addressed, and the corporate oligarchy remains in near total control, someone worse than Trump will come along.
...Which is probably what will happen.
I agree that Biden won because Trump lost.
ReplyDeleteHowever, for me what stood out was where Trump and Biden came together - no medicare for all, no green new deal, increase spending for the police, and how "the left" poses a threat to the republic and how proud Biden was to point out that he had crushed the Bernie threat. They are also both pro-Wall St and military spending, but Biden's litany stopped with his boast of beating Bernie "a whole helluva lot" and declaring that he is the Democratic party.
Sparks,
ReplyDeleteAnd how, may I ask, would you tackle them when, in order to accomplish anything in our form of government, you have to pass legislation, which means, generally, that you have to obtain the support of members of the opposing party, most of whom do not share your vision of what is needed to be done? And then, when the party you favor copacetically controls both the Executive and both houses of Congress, some members of your own party do not agree with your proposed solutions? And then, when the opposing party regains control of the Executive and one or both houses of Congress, they attempt to undo the legislation your party enacted. The last time the Democrats controlled both the Executive and both houses of Congress was during President Obama’s fist term of office, and the Republicans are doing everything in their power to get rid of his stellar achievement, Obamacare, and with the appointment of Barrett to the Supreme Court, will probably succeed. Before Obama, the Democrats controlled both houses during Clinton’s first term, and a good deal of what he achieved was undone by President Bush and the invasion of Iraq.
So, if these problems are inherent in our form of government, what would you propose to insure that there are enough people in power who “have vision enough to tackle this moment's crises.” Change the form of government?
MS
Sparks is correct. Imagine a President Pompeo, if you will, as he seems to be the most likely candidate at this juncture, barring as-yet-unforeseen scandals or ailments.
ReplyDeleteTrump's inclinations have largely been to withdraw forces from overseas military engagements and to avoid new conflicts. His withdrawal attempts have been blocked by the MIC establishment and Democratic "resisters" (eyeroll here). Pompeo will have no such inclinations.
And getting Trump out of the White House is not the same as getting rid of Trumpism among Americans.
"Here I’m going out on a limb, but I doubt that a majority of the Justices would vote to overturn a clear Biden victory. Since I lived through the Bush Gore fiasco..."
ReplyDeleteWe should never forget that Bush v. Gore was a bloodless coup by the Republican gang of five on the Supreme Court.
Jerry,
ReplyDeleteI am sorry, but I don’t get your point. You purport to be pro-democratic and declaim that the American people are being exploited and their interests are not being adequately addressed by the powers that be. But when Biden points out that he defeated Sanders in the primaries – primaries in which the people whose interests you feel are being neglected voted in greater numbers for him than for Sanders – you essentially charge Biden with being anti-progressive and backward. But he got a majority of the votes – not from Wall Street bakers and Christian evangelists, but from the people in the middle class, and even in the lower socio-economic class, who you claim are being exploited. So why did they vote for him? No one forced them to. They had ample access to the information they needed to make a decision. Do you believe they are too ignorant to know what is best for them? Frankly, it is you who comes across as anti-democratic and elitist.
MS
If you're interested in the foreign point of view, Raul Sohr, my favorite international political commenter, who appears nightly in CNN-Chile, which is a bit more leftie than CNN-USA, says more or less what Professor Wolff says above, that while he wouldn't say that Biden won the debate, he didn't lose.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Eric that getting Trump out of the White House is not at all the same as ending Trumpism, which may be reborn as a potential force in 4 more years: how about Ivanka as a candidate?
It seems premature to speculate what will happen four years from now when Biden is far from winning the election and actually getting himself inaugurated on January 20.
ReplyDeleteHowever, like others, I can't help but speculate.
If Trump leaves office on January 20, he will soon face indictments, the threat of jail time, and bankruptcy. Does anyone think Melania will stick with him when he's broke and headed for jail? So Trump will also be divorced. That is what, I imagine, Republicans will watch unfold. It won't do much for the Republican brand. At some point, the Republican Party will make a comeback, but I'm not sure it will be in 2022 or 2024.
MS,
ReplyDeleteI see multiple avenues for answering your question. I want to try unpacking it first, before addressing what I believe is its core.
If I'm not mistaken, I detect two tracks:
First and most obvious, of course, is the legislative success question. I believe the first part of your paragraph concerns this. If I may put it in a phrase, "How will you get your ideas passed?"
Second, the latter half of your paragraph is a question about electoral success. Perhaps another way of putting it is, "What happens to your legislative successes when you lose an election?"
Both are excellent questions, but I suspect the rhetorical value of your queries isn't to illicit a winding discussion about the minutiae of political strategy, but to highlight the difficulty of passing significant reform.
You're quite right to do so. And, as many of your posts here are, I find your words both sobering and insightful.
In pushing back, I would simply say there is an all too common conflation of difficulty and refutation. Against that assumption, I would argue that difficulty is by no means a strike against either the value or desirability of either specific policy proposals, or, to take a germane example, nonbinding resolutions like the Green New Deal. To me, difficulty is but a challenge to fight harder, as is my wont anyway.
To address what I believe is the center of this exchange, then: difficulty is neither salve for, nor disincentive from, lamenting the current state of our politics. Indeed, Biden versus Trump is the best our politics has produced at this moment. And hence my despair.
Correction:
ReplyDeleteI meant to write Brian (not Sparks) is right, where he says that a Biden win could mean "someone worse than Trump will come along."
aall,
ReplyDeleteBut Gore did not have a clear victory, the premise for Prof. Wolff’s observation, and why it is imperative that Biden win big in the Midwest states which Trump won. If not, then yes, we could have another bloodless coup, as you put it.
MS
I share Eric’s and Brian’s misgivings. Even if, hopefully, Biden wins, we still have to live with the fact that 3 out of 10 Americans supported this troglodyte of a person regardless his lying, his self-praise, his scornful treatment of others, his affinity for white supremacists and admiration of fascist leaders, etc., etc. 3 out of 10! And they will still be out there – and procreating.
ReplyDeleteMS
I do think there are two ways to assess "winning."
ReplyDelete1. Biden "won" because Trump didn't affect polling or electoral voting patterns in his favor.
2. Trump "won" because he was never intending to "win" a clean electoral vote, and he succeeded (1) in telling his militias to obstruct voting and implement political violence; and (2) in making it clear he intended to let the Court pick the winner, to further depress turnout.
Both are simultaneously possible, but only the latter strikes me as a realistic assessment of the situation.
Picking up on s. wallerstein at 2:12 PM, “If you’re interested in the foreign point of view”: it’s notable that apart from direct and indirect statements—all of them either lies or expressions of hostility, all of them lacking substance—of opposition to China, US foreign policy was abesnt from last night’s war of words. But when one looks abroad one encounters views I haven’t yet seen expressed here. These views basically come down to: ‘Our fates are tied to that country and its political class which keep on demonstrating ever worse incompetence? We’d better start figuring out how to escape the bonds and start looking elsewhere for a system of at least some comprehensible global order.” The Empire is clearly in decline. Will it disintegrate as peacefully as the USSR did, or are we in for something cataclysmic?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54354405
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/30/trump-biden-debate-britain-special-relationship
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/30/world/europe/trump-biden-debate-global-reaction.html
Add this:
ReplyDeletehttps://fpif.org/americas-global-reputation-isnt-bouncing-back-anytime-soon/
Last night, Trump showed that he is a cornered, desperate, ferocious, rabid animal. Such animals are extremely dangerous and need to be handled accordingly.
ReplyDeleteIn particular, he used Roy Cohn's evil, sociopathic playbook to an extreme degree:
• Always be on the offensive. Attack, attack, attack. If someone attacks you, counter-attack immediately.
• If someone hits you, hit him or her back 10 or 20 times harder.
• If someone accuses you of wrongdoing, attack him or her relentlessly. Attack the accuser.
• Never admit wrongdoing or mistakes. Never accept blame. Blame others.
• Never apologize. Never feel guilty.
• Never admit failure, loss, or defeat. Always spin things as a win or victory.
• Never settle. Never surrender.
• Never show weakness.
Overall, these highly aggressive, sociopathic strategies are designed to mentally break or at least exhaust your opponents. Trump overwhelmed Biden at times but Biden hung in there and threw his punches (e.g. “You’re Putin’s puppy”; “You’re the worst president we’ve ever had”; “Would you shut up man?”; “It’s hard to get any word in with this clown”).
I think that if Roy Cohn were alive today and saw last night’s debate, he would be angry that Trump was using this playbook to such an extreme degree in a presidential debate. It’s counter-productive and very unbefitting an incumbent president. It’s one thing to use this playbook when you’re a ruthless lawyer, litigator, or power-broker; it’s another thing to use it as president in a presidential debate when 205,000 Americans have died due to COVID-19.
Or perhaps I’m wrong and Roy Cohn would approve.
Trump has nothing to campaign on except to raise fears of “the left,” socialism, etc., and Biden couldn’t stand his ground. Not that I expected much, but I didn’t expect that level of cowardice. I am more concerned about the call for Trump supporters to show up en masse at polling places. It is a call for widespread voter intimidation by groups willing to engage in violence. It could materially impact the election results if the intimidation is targeted.
ReplyDeleteI have recently argued here that it's naive to think that all we need to do to fix our broken government is to change the membership of the Supreme Court (& other branches of goverment), such as by expanding the number of justices and putting more-progressive justices in the new seats. I've said that it's folly to expect an institution that is conservative by nature and design to come to our rescue, and that if we are to be able to respond to the threats of climate change with the urgency the moment demands we need to seek more fundamental structural changes in government.
ReplyDeleteYale law professor Samuel Moyn has been making similar arguments wrt discussions about the obstacles the federal judiciary poses for implementing progressive policies, although he focuses on possibilities for changes to the Supreme Court that could be implemented short of constitutional amendment.
Here's what Moyn said in an interview last week:
ReplyDelete"The diagnosis I make is that in general the Supreme Court has been on the side of reaction rather than progress. If you just generalize, there are four periods [in the Court's history], and in three of the four, it looks pretty baleful. First, before the Civil War ... when it's basically propping up the slaveocracy.... Then you get the post-Civil War period when it becomes a defender of the emergent Guilded Age order and the class hierarchy of that period.... And then there's today, the second Guilded Age....
What I find is that most liberals, including most law professors, are kind of in a hangover relationship to the exceptional, third period of Earl Warren's Court, without really thinking about why it was exceptional [and] how long ago we've moved on."
And in an upcoming article, Moyn writes:
ReplyDelete"Notwithstanding the good work done by constitutionally empowered judges since [FDR], it should surprise no one that, as the Court has drifted inexorably right, it has exercised its institutional heft on behalf of the powerful and wealthy minorities progressives once hoped to put in their place. Worse, it remains armed with weapons to oppose any progressive movement as it seeks power to overcome legacies of economic and racial division, not to mention confront looming environmental catastrophe.
The problem is not just that Republican presidents ... have gotten more than their share of high court judges. Democrats, when they had their chance, replaced progressive jurists with centrist liberals, who often agreed over core economic and regulatory issues with their conservative opposite numbers, even as topics like abortion or affirmative action divided them. Both parties, and the rival sets of judges, concurred more than they differed.... As neoliberal centrism waxed and progressive coalitions waned, it seemed acceptable for a while. But by the standards of progressive ends, the Supreme Court never became much more than a sideshow about the avoidance of the most reactionary moves and preservation of the modestly beneficial precedents of the past. Sometimes it was coupled with a dream that someday the Supreme Court would return to a trajectory arrested decades before, without much reflection on why its contribution had been strictly limited in the first place....
The consequence for the discussion of Supreme Court alternatives is straightforward. It must begin with how to diminish the institution’s power in favor of popular majorities. Asking 'how to save the Supreme Court' is asking the wrong question. For saving it is not a desirable goal; getting it out of the way of progressive reform is."
Moyn examines a variety of possible changes beyond court-packing. He argues that measures to limit the power of the Court relative to Congress might be easier to enact and less vulnerable than court-packing to problems like the spiraling that would likely ensue from tit-for-tat reactions by conservatives.
'Do you believe they are too ignorant to know what is best for them? Frankly, it is you who comes across as anti-democratic and elitist.'
ReplyDeleteHow Joe Biden won over Bernie Sanders. I don't think the 'left' reaction to this is to admit that Biden won an argument. I note how Biden cut deals with Klobuchar and Buttigieg that convinced them to drop out and endorse his campaign on the eve of Super Tuesday. Then, in a bid to
win Warren’s endorsement, or at least stop her from endorsing Sanders, he conceded on the argument that has defined their relationship, adopting her bankruptcy reform bill as his own. So, this is his instinct for cutting deals, which indeed, means for liberals and leftists that
he’ll sell them out to the right to win Republican votes. Maybe the glass is half full here though, and his coalitional approach to politics is an opportunity for them to influence him, as well..
But it's not, then, that Biden is one side of an argument that will be settled by his victory. Instead, it's that the only way to win is to make real, serious concessions -- concrete concessions and avenues of influence.
Maybe the closest analogue was what you see in multi-party systems, where one party wins the election and absorbs its nearest competitors.
Dear Christopher Mulvaney
ReplyDeletePolitics is a battle of ideas but at least in this campaign of people
If the election is about Trump then to a degree it is about how to handle Trump man on man, almost like the boxing spectacles last century at Madison Square Garden and elsewhere.
Biden told Trump to shut up and that he's the worst President ever and that everyone knows he's liar.
Not that he out Trumped Trump but unlike any contender in 2016 he effectively told Trump to go fuck himself, man to man- that's the language Blue Collar independents speak- Joe is an average Joe who got into a bar room brawl with the piece of shit of the United States.
Sure the issues mean and amount to something, but Biden punched back and landed a few blows.
Politics is a battle of men, said Burke: we can use that saying for our side
Jerry Fresia> Trump and Biden came together - no medicare for all, no green new deal, increase spending for the police, and how "the left" poses a threat to the republic and how proud Biden was to point out that he had crushed the Bernie threat.
ReplyDeleteJust a few reasons why no decent human being should vote for either...
Boris, I get where you are coming from. I despise both candidates.
ReplyDeleteBut that said, if Trump remains in power-- that is it, checkmate; We have officially become an autocracy and Trump the dictator. Since Trump is a narcissistic-sociopath (I'm a psychology student), if he remains in power he'll be out sadistically punishing his opponents. Most likely, it will begin with him sending federal goons loyal to him to liberal cities in order to "dominate" the liberal "commies" and "antifa". His base would then perhaps join in on "saving America" with their impressive stockpile of weapons.
Biden getting in would be kicking the can down the road again, but that is better than the checkmate that I'm certain a continuation of Trumps power would be.
Please vote Biden.
Boris, if you believe Trump = Biden, we don't live on the same planet. I don't think starving people should turn down half a loaf just because they can't get a full loaf. Medicare for All would be best; Medicare for those who want it is better than what we now have--and what we now have is in danger of evaporating because of the Republican governor's legal challenge. The only way that can be overcome is through legislation, and the only way that can occur is with Democrats in control of both houses and the presidency. The purist may feel better by seeing the lesser of two evils as an evil and not worthy of his support--but many people will suffer as a consequence of the purist's self-indulgence.
ReplyDeleteBiden was unable to consistently sound good, Trump did everything to bring Biden down to his level, but hey, Trump lied about his tax history in the debate. As Joe Biden said, 'Everyone knows he's a liar'. Trump was downright rabid, deranged.
ReplyDeleteBesides, it may be an unpopular thought around here, but it seems to me that 'I am the Democratic Party now', and 'The platform is what I approved', were Biden statements that count as clear evidence that Biden well prepared. Or, I mean, in theory, Trump's approach made sense. The 'being controlled by the radical left' issue is a big 'Biden' issue with swing voters.
I might suppose it to be fairly obvious, that Trump's style was designed to ideally trigger a meltdown/make Biden appear weak, and Tump's substance was intended to define Biden as a tool of the radical left.
Dear Howie,
ReplyDeleteI look at politics differently than you. Politics is about who gets what, and who gets screwed in the process. Biden neither out-trumped Trump nor did he out-argue him on the merits. If it is about Biden talking the language of the working class independent, then we are screwed because there are no working class independents in this election cycle. I don’t have much use for Burke, or British conservatism in general, but I suspect in his view the battle between men is the one between English aristocratic gentlemen over who will be Prime Minister, not one between a fascist and an ex-workingman’s Joe.
i agree with Jerry Fresia’s point above - that Biden threw the left under the bus. To run away from the Green New Deal for being “socialist”, for example, is to implicitly accept Trump’s terms of debate. It is also pretty easy to defend the plan while making Trump look like an idiot in the process.
Christopher,
ReplyDeleteI think it's too much to say that Biden threw the left under the bus. He made a deal with Bernie and so far as I know he's stuck to it. He's a professional politician, he'll always be in the center, and he's going to where he thinks the votes are. The center has moved left since 2008 and so as he, but no further. The task for the left is to move the country to the left and, as has been pointed out by many, that's not an easy task. Still the AOCs of this Congress have made their mark. Elect more of them, and the Bidens of this world will follow.
At this time in our country, pointing out that a politician is a liar is like stating that the forest has trees. Will that really factor into the votes? Doubtful.
ReplyDeleteDear Christopher
ReplyDeleteI personally know white independents who like Trump for some stupid reason and they were the ones who swung the 2016 election. It was Trump the charismatic asshole that appealed to them, not just the message. These people exist. They don't care about debating points per se, they care about their everyday lives and they are sold on the man, but some can be pulled back from the edge. That's what Burke, who though not an ideological hero of mine, knows a thing or two about life, observed- This election is about Trump versus Biden just like the last was about Trump versus Clinton- You may think she lost because of her positions- she lost because of the kind of candidate she was. You're making the same mistake the democrats made going back to Dukakis. The man or woman counts as much as the message- that's all that Burke's dictum means in our context. Trump's message is a con and he's a conman- the message cannot be separated from the messenger. The human element counts and Biden was smart enough to stand up against Trump the bully and not try to debate with a narcissistic conman or try to talk people out of his spell with pure logic or perceived self interest.
You have an inadequate theory of mind of the American electorate, and the democratic leadership just wants to consciousness raise and win debates.
This is more like a war than you can imagine and wars are won by fighting, and Biden is fighting thank God. (who I don't believe exists, even though Burke may have)
With regard to what Howie says:
ReplyDeleteI don't know what the figure is for the U.S., but according to one poll considered to be reliable, only 7% of Chileans follow politics and talk about it in their homes or with friends. If the figure is more or less the same in the U.S., that means, as Howie says,
one very important factor in any election is the human factor.