I'm taking the exact opposite view here, respectfully. Sure.. if nothing happens to the President then the VP is of little consequence. But let's be frank - both of these candidates, Biden and Trump, are in their 70's, 77 and 74 respectively. So they are one health issue away from their VP assuming office.

We also live in very divided times, and darkly speaking, assassination attempts aren't exactly missing from the US historical record.

And finally, the VP does do a few more things. They reflect the kind of cabinet a would-be president wants to create, the kind of political team and company they are willing to associate with and foster. If they pick a VP that holds extreme views, that makes me want to vote for the main candidate less. But if they pick someone that can help possibly reign in a candidate's more extreme views, it can show they are willing to surround themselves with more 'centrist' ideas.

I think having a VP debate is definitely worthwhile, but you only need one. So I think the current format makes a lot of sense. I would not be for a second or third VP debate, as that would be too much. But one gives you an idea of what kind of person the presidential candidate sees as a worthy partner. And VPs can really find themselves influential on some policy issues throughout a 4-year term as well. They have the ear of the president and a seat at the table. Should know how that person thinks and where they stand on XYZ topics of the day.

The first presidential debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden is actually in-person, in front of a relatively small audience at the Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland Ohio. Fox New's Chris Wallace is the moderator.

They are doing multiple 15-minutes segments, covering these topics among others:

The Trump and Biden Records
The Supreme Court
The Economy
Race and Violence in our Cities
Integrity of the Election

Will be interesting to see as Chris Wallace interviewed Donald Trump recently and really pushed him hard on a lot of issues that you might expect a Fox News interviewer to let him skate on.

So given that, I am actually really intrigued by Wallace moderating this first debate and expect it to be an interesting watch. The audience is only about 200, so hopefully they aren't much a factor and Biden and Trump can really be forced to answer some difficult questions in a more straight forward way.

Given the recent passing of RBG, no doubt the Supreme Court issue will be contentious. As will the race and violence section. I think those have the greatest opportunity to be talked about the most after this airs.

Post thoughts before, during and after.

PentagonWall Wrote:

JFoster Wrote:

We'll see how the final night turns out. I'll update with my takeaway from night 4. What moments stood out to you the most?

Ok.... I normally try to understand that giving speeches is hard. People mess up. They stumble and present themselves in awkward ways sometimes. That said, this was the most bizarre and surreal speech I've ever seen (in today's world).

Kimberly Guilfoyles speech..

YES! This so reminded me of this and I am really happy someone put this short version mash up together:

Full version, watch her speech, then Dwight's, back to back. Pretty funny.

I think the debates will be very important this year. Or at least could be. With many caveats. It won't change the hearts or minds of a vast majority of voters; they made their decision long ago. But for the undecideds, or those that are deciding if its even worth the effort to get out and vote at all, especially in swing states, these debates could really push one candidate over the edge.

If Trump says something unforgivable on live TV, that could push undecided votes to Biden in droves. Or if Biden has an unforgivable gaffe, the exact opposite. Both scenarios have a definite ability to happen, and regardless of where these candidates stand on complex political issues, the economy, foreign policy, etc.. it usually comes down to which person does the American public feel the most comfortable with as our leader, and which would we rather see and hear talked about for the next four years.

This is THE chance for both candidates to win over those that aren't already watching and just hoping their guy slings mud the best at the other. Hopefully their is enough substance there for that to happen. Otherwise this will be what many fear - political theater and nothing more.

It was the most important, but not the strongest. At least it didn't resonate the strongest. But he did do better than I thought he would.

He had an interesting mix of tone in his voice, that I have come to expect from him the last year or so. Where he talks calmly then raises his voice and gets very serious, almost all the sudden. But its not off-putting because it comes across as passionate and sincere instead of threatening or angry. Ultimately I actually really do believe he believes what he says, which really is about all you expect from a leader at this point. Aside from agreeing/not agreeing with political stances.

But I think sincerity is paramount, and that much was delivered in my opinion. That, and he didn't gaffe. He stumbled very slightly on a few words, but no brain fog moments. And for that I was grateful.

The Most Important Presidential Debates in American History, According to Historians

Fascinating read from Time. Definitely recommend reading from start to finish, especially if you enjoy a walk down history lane. But to give just the list for this thread's discussion, here we are:

JFK vs Nixon (1960)
Carter vs Ford (1976)
Carter vs Reagan (1980)
George H.W. Bush vs Clinton vs Perot (1992)
George W. Bush vs Gore (2000)

That's the top 5. It's really interesting how the importance of televised presidential debates has changed over the decades, as our country changes and technology matures. The weight of candidates debating and it's ability to capture the American public and sway a election really hinges on what the country is going through at the moment. And what national conversation rules the day -- war, the state of the economy, injustices of all kinds, crime, climate change, etc.

But also the candidates themselves, juxtaposed against each other. JFK v Nixon was the ultimate example of this I would say.

Also an election can be easily won or lost during a single televised presidential debate, with a simple gaffe. Or you can be exposed on the biggest stage with the most Americans watching at the same time as being weak or ill informed on an issue: see Ford's comment on the Soviet union in the 1976 debate, which many believed helped Carter win:

The pair faced each other for a total of three debates, but the debates are best remembered for a single moment during the second debate. President Ford declared that “There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, and there never will be under a Ford administration.” At the time, even the moderator, Max Frankel of the New York Times, was unable to hold back his surprise: “I’m sorry, what? … did I understand you to say, sir, that the Russians are not using Eastern Europe as their own sphere of influence in occupying most of the countries there and making sure with their troops that it’s a communist zone…”

I also think its interesting to consider how the internet and social media have given more exposure to candidates well before a nationally televised debate. So from around 2004 onward we have progressively been much more inundated with the personality (or lack-thereof) of candidates, and you could argue that debates are less important now than any from 1960 - 2000. Which may be why TIME's historians they polled didn't put any debates on this list from 2004-2016.

That doesn't mean modern-day presidential debates don't matter any more. When the country is polarized, debates are still a fascinating watch to see how candidates act and react to each other, in real time. My absolute favorite example actually made this list - Bush v Clinton v Perot. I have watched that debate a few times over and am amazed how Clinton rose to prominence during a single debate by commanding the stage, even though I felt Perot was the strongest of them and should have won out. Clinton I believe won the election by being the alpha on the stage and winning over the audience, both in the studio and at home, a HUGE turning point for his career.

JaredS Wrote:

In response, the former First Lady said "He [President Trump] cannot meet this moment. He simply cannot be who we need him to be for us. It is what it is."

There's a good chance the polls will change after the conventions, for both sides. I imagine some favor-ability/likability poll results will go up for a short while for each candidate, after each convention. And maybe we'll even see the candidates come closer in the national polls overall, as each side digs in.

But I agree, the fact that these are virtual conventions takes a lot of steam out of them. The Republicans don't have a lot of draw for theirs outside of Trump himself, but he gets so much coverage already I'm not sure how much that will change things. No doubt he does or says something, or 10 somethings, that make headlines for a while. But again, that always happens anyways.

JFoster Wrote:

The DNC nominated President Franklin D. Roosevelt for an unprecedented third term in 1940 after a “voice from the sewer,” Thomas Garry, suddenly emerged to rally delegates and stampede the convention into choosing Roosevelt.