Anyone who has had the opportunity to give feedback to a boss at work or a commander in the military knows that it is a slightly embarrassing experience, but how lucky that none of us was an adviser to the President of the United States who had to be told “Mr. President, we need to talk”. There is no one in the world who is now jealous of the line of advisors, associates and surveyors who have to debate, among themselves and together with their boss, the most powerful man in the world, should he continue?
The first presidential debate, which was held tonight (4:00 Israel time), was conducted relatively calmly, and did not reproduce the Tirol show of 2020 – the candidates did not erupt at the words of their opponent (among other things, because the microphones were muted), and most of the conversation was about policy issues, primarily the things that concern the voter (economy, immigration, abortion).
Let’s start with tonight’s winner, former President Trump – for lack of another word, he was a statesman. He focused on policy, “attacked” the incumbent president from every possible angle, and rarely got down to personal lines. He kept his messages short, simple and focused, in particular on the issue of immigration, which he managed (rightly) to relate to everything – the cost of living, personal security, drugs, China, the situation of military veterans. For him, it is a winning issue. He also managed to give relatively good answers regarding abortion (“Give the authority to make decisions to the states, I am against a federal ban, I support the availability of abortion pills”), one of his weak points, even if inaccurate (among other things he claimed that “abortion after birth”, That is, the murder of a baby is allowed in some states in the US. This is of course not true).
The 45th president (and maybe also the 47th) destroyed himself a bit with a few personal statements (the lie that he did not have an affair with the porn star Stormy Daniels, the insult about the weakness of Biden’s golf swing) or regarding democracy (the unwillingness to commit to accepting the election results, the attack on the rule of law and the accusation of the judicial system in its persecution) but overall, there is quite a consensus that emerged victorious from this confrontation. Today, more than ever, it seems that Trump is close to returning to the White House – not only as the only president (since Grover Cleveland in the late 19th century) who serves two non-consecutive terms, but also as the only president who was convicted of crimes – and was elected despite this.
At the same time, President Biden came out with his hand on the bottom – first, while Trump floated (real) problems but did not necessarily outline solutions in depth, Biden did try to delve deeper into data, numbers and policies. It made him sound dry, almost boring, and for some episodes it seemed that even he was getting bored (even in the second half, a little less). This stood out mainly in Biden’s concluding remarks, who chose to talk about lowering prices and the need for “fair taxes” – ostensibly to target the median voter, the middle class, for whom the cost of living is the critical issue, but in practice it is about choosing an issue that is not particularly exciting.
But Biden’s real problem was not the content, but the performance, in a way that directly stems from his physical condition – he was unable to “take off”. The fantasy of all Biden supporters was that he would be able to recreate the impressive State of the Nation speech – but his words were more like reading a grocery list of positions, successes and challenges he intends to solve in the future. Even though there were some issues on which his record shows that they charge him with energy and drain him of passion, from Israel to the involvement of his son Hunter, Biden throughout the confrontation seemed sleepy, pale, hoarse and unfocused. He often got confused between numbers (a billion or a trillion), issues (between women who were murdered by immigrants and women who died due to complications in childbirth) and framing (“We attacked Medicaid”, in a way that reminded some of the 2015 statement of the then opposition leader Yitzhak Herzog, according to which he will “keep Netanyahu united”).
This column was written three and a half hours after the confrontation ended. Meanwhile, both the polling consultant David Axelrod and the New York Times commentator Thomas Friedman were enough to call Biden to retire, even though neither of them were enthusiastic about him in the first place. The interpretive and political discourse is alert to the possibility that he will be forced to leave. Even Deputy Kamala Harris, in an interview with the media that couldn’t sound less like “the management is backing the coach”, had to admit that the president “started weak”. Biden, in order to preserve his dignity, says that – “I was fine, it’s hard to deal with a liar”, and his campaign has already rushed to announce that he is suffering from a cold – but they will have a very hard time stopping the deterioration.
A decision to replace the president is possible, and in fact this may have been one of the reasons for conducting the confrontation at such an early stage, even before the conference. If Biden had exceeded expectations (which were very low), he might have changed the poll picture and the trend. Since the confrontation is seen as a failure, he can still give way.
Such a decision cannot be “on Biden’s head” and it will have to be made with his consent. But it is already possible to estimate that the pressure will increase significantly, especially from the party establishment. Fortunately for the Democrats, on the lines are a fairly respectable line of alternative candidates, although not without challenges.
Among other things: Vice President Kamala Harris is considered the natural heir, but she is even less popular than him; Transportation Secretary Pete Bottage, the party’s “prodigy” who has already gained significant experience in a major office, is an avowed homosexual and is not sure America is ready for a gay president; California governor Gavin Newsom is an eloquent and charismatic speaker but is considered too left-wing, one who cannot win outside of a blue state; Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer is very popular in a key state, but reminds Democrats of the trauma of 2016 and the fear of chauvinism in American society; Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro is progressive enough to bring in the left but not too much to drive away the center, but he doesn’t have enough experience; And Kentucky Governor Andy Bashir did manage to win in a distinctly red state, but one that his father, Steve Bashir, led less than ten years ago.
Either way, the remaining weeks until the Democratic convention (August 19 to 22, in Chicago, Illinois) will be very tense. In the absence of a clear decision by the president, and even more so if the conference is divided – neither camp will rush to present the candidacy to its opponent on a silver platter. Quite a bit of bad blood flows between different groups in the party, and history shows that a divided conference serves the opposing party.
A weak Palestinian Biden
Foreign policy in general, and the war in Israel in particular, received a relatively small share of issues such as the economy and immigration, but a relatively large one compared to past conflicts. The two candidates aligned the “right” line and did not criticize Israel or attack it, but rather competed among themselves “who is friendlier to Israel”: Biden boasted that he stopped the missile attack, called for the destruction of Hamas and even claimed that “we saved Israel.” Trump attacked him for releasing funds to Iran (“During my time they went bankrupt”), claimed that Biden is calling on Israel to stop instead of finishing the job and of course that “this would not have happened on my watch”. He even accused Biden of supporting the Palestinian side until “he became a Palestinian, a weak Palestinian” (later, similarly, he also claimed that Biden receives money from China and that “he is a Manchurian candidate”).
The competition for the pro-Israel voice teaches us that both estimate that there is more potential harm in going against Israel than in supporting it. Despite the stormy reactions to the war, the status quo regarding the status of Israel (a fairly popular country in the USA) and the Jewish community (for its contributions) in the USA still stands.
#State #Trump #Bidens #boredom #warming #lines
2024-06-28 19:00:21