Whatever happens in the first debate between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump, it will certainly be one of the most important moments of this campaign. And depending on the performance of either or both, holding this anticipated debate in June could be the most important decision of this campaign.
To say we are in uncharted waters or unprecedented territory is an understatement. But make no mistake, the trajectory of this race for Biden – along with external events that are all working against the incumbent right now, namely inflation and Israel’s military operation in Gaza – was not sustainable, so Biden’s campaign had have to do something to change.
It’s possible Biden waited until pre-scheduled debates in September or October to hope for a game-changing moment. But that would be little.
Waiting until the fall to create a better contrast with Trump would have limited opportunities to convene audibles if Plan A didn’t work. Biden needed to shake up this race before the summer convention season and the Olympics.
Ultimately, Biden’s goal is to change the perception he has of him, not just race. Last week, I wrote the following about voters’ perceptions of Biden’s weakness and Trump’s strength:
“Can the Biden campaign solve this image problem? Given our short information ecosystem, one can always assume there is time to change perception, but it is becoming difficult.
“The most obvious way to try to improve Biden’s perceived weakness is to get him out there more often and in more places that aren’t as controlled. And although he’s been out more, he’s still limited in his impromptu public appearances.”
When I thought about different ways Biden could move forward, I wasn’t thinking about a debate in June. But it’s probably one of the best options anyone could imagine for talking to the entire country before the fall.
Thanks to media fragmentation, we don’t have many shared experiences as a country outside of major sporting events — think Super Bowls and the Olympics — or rare historical anomalies like this year’s eclipse.
Arguably, presidential elections and presidential debates are the only other events outside the non-sports world that capture the attention of the majority of Americans in a single setting.
And although school ends at the end of June and some people are focused on their summer plans, make no mistake: the entire country will see at least part of this confrontation between Trump and Biden. It is very significant and our politics are very divided. Everyone will want to know how this happens.
There has been too much excellent speculative analysis about the potential consequences of this decision to debate in advance. Some believe that the Biden campaign did this to try to mitigate the importance and impact of the debates, agreeing to an early debate in exchange for reducing the number of debates from three to two.
Some believe the Trump campaign agreed to Biden’s requests too quickly. After all, how often do you see an incumbent playing the role of “debate challenger”? This usually only happens when the holder is late. Does Trump really think debates help him? Obviously yes, but the data suggests otherwise.
Perhaps the reason Biden and Trump wanted this initial debate is that they both feared that the Commission on Presidential Debates would end up qualifying Robert F. Kennedy Jr. By moving forward so early, both candidates are preparing for each other. before they have to rely on Kennedy, assuming he can get enough votes by the fall and qualify in the polls with a sustained level of 15% support. .
An early debate also allows the Biden and Trump campaigns more time to recalibrate before their own conventions, essentially mitigating the possibility of a debate ending their campaign. A poor debate performance in the fall could be more politically catastrophic than it would be, say, a week before July 4th.
And, of course, arriving early doesn’t preclude more debates in the fall. If Biden suddenly thinks he needs more debates, perhaps the Commission will get a call and his pre-planned debates for September and October will eventually move forward.
And here’s one more technicality about scheduling an early debate: If the debate is a complete disaster for one of them, each party technically There is time and a process to change nominees. After all, this first debate will take place before any candidate is the official candidate of their party.
But the scenario I wonder most about is one that I’m not sure either campaign has fully considered. It’s the possibility that the country will simply hate what it sees, period. If the debate is between two old men swearing at each other – what about happened in the debates four years ago – voters could be even more depressed about their choices for the fall. And it is impossible to say how the butterfly effect would develop later.
Would there be an outcry for someone else? Arguably, it is the Democrats who seem less loyal to their presumptive candidate at this point than the Republicans. Would disappointment with the party’s leading duo lead to more interest in Kennedy? What if he hits the 20s in the polls over the summer? Essentially, it would guarantee that the second debate would be a three-way showdown – unless the threat of including Kennedy killed the remaining debate.
In short: this debate will be very important. And the previous debates are more likely to have unintended consequences that neither campaign foresees at this point. So buckle up, because what we thought would be a potentially nauseating campaign over about 60 days in the fall is now starting about three months early. That’s why I carry more Tums with me than ever.
The background of politics
Perhaps the most overlooked development of this new debate calendar is the prospect of an incredibly early vice presidential debate, although the Biden and Trump campaigns have accepted invitations from rival networks for now. The proposed dates are as early as the end of July, meaning the eventual GOP vice presidential pick could take less than two weeks between the selection and the debate with Vice President Kamala Harris.
I wonder if Trump will now be forced to choose a running mate closer to early July, simply so that his pick can have adequate time to prepare (and also be introduced to the country). If Trump waits until, say, the day before the convention, he will actually be putting a lot of pressure on his vice presidential nominee to be ready on day one.
It would be difficult to recover from a poor debate performance (or a “deer in the headlights” performance) within the first 10 days of being introduced as the Republican Party’s running mate if the chosen one had not already established their own connection with the public. If the debate is the introduction, it really raises the stakes for the nominee.
The smartest thing for the Trump team is to have him announce his pick before July 1st. This, of course, goes against Trump’s love of drama, and if the choice is not in doubt at the start of the convention, it could lead to less interest in that event. And Trump cares about these things more than most candidates for public office.
The care portfolio
Sometimes an idea seems so simple and clever that you wonder why you’ve never heard it before.
I recently participated in a fascinating discussion with female CEOs talking about what they have learned and their experiences in trying to create more gender equality in the business world. One of the CEOs, as a semi-appearance, talked about giving her employees a benefit she called a “care wallet.” In that portfolio would be money and benefits that they control and could focus on needs that may be unique to them. It could be used for self-care (think mental health), child care, or elder care. (Hello, fellow sandwich generation!)
The second I heard this, it was like a light bulb went off in my political brain. This is an excellent way to build broad consensus on how to address the real challenges facing today’s families in the three areas above. This is an idea that should and could become popular quickly.
I’ve seen some politicians talk about various versions of all these benefits, and certainly there are millions of Americans who could use help in all three areas. But I thought this was a smarter, more accessible way to argue that all Americans should have access to benefits (whether through work or a government plan) that allow them this kind of flexibility.
Not everyone has child care needs, not everyone has elder care needs, and not everyone has mental health needs that require a professional. But I bet we all have at least one these three needs.
Slogans can make complicated things seem simple, and I know the “caring card” can taste like that. But consider me convinced that this is an idea that deserves traction and attention in the American political debate.
This story originally appeared on NBCNews.com read the full story
