Trump, Biden or anybody but them… who will America choose?

The presidential debate will be the last chance for both men to make their case before party nominations are formalised, writes Mary Dejevsky. But after a campaign full of senior moments, voters may seize the opportunity to demand fresher faces

Both candidates were unhappy with the conduct of the 2016 and 2020 debates (Getty)

At prime time in the United States on Thursday evening, the two most recognisable figures in American politics today will step into the limelight for a duel that could decide the result of the presidential election months before any vote is cast. For once, such make-or-break talk is no exaggeration. Either contender could have their electoral prospects scuppered by what happens during the 90 minutes the two will be on stage.

Joe Biden has spent much of the past week preparing at the presidential retreat at Camp David, delving into the likely topics and role playing the debate. Donald Trump has remained on the campaign trail, where he also is reported to be consulting advisers – his campaign this time around is widely seen as far more professionally organised than either of his previous two runs. Characteristically, though, he has also used his meetings and rallies to sound out the public response, or at least that of his fans. Should he play nice or nasty, was his pitch at a rally in Philadelphia last weekend.

This debate is unusual in several respects. It is the first time an incumbent president will take on a former president in a televised debate. It is also the first time for nearly 40 years that such a debate has not been organised by the Commission on Presidential Debates – an independent organisation set up in 1987 to sponsor, arrange and broker the terms for presidential and primary-season broadcast debates.

Apparently, both candidates were unhappy with the conduct of the 2016 and 2020 debates, as having been – so the criticism goes – chaotic, unfair, and at times reduced to little more than shouting matches. The upshot was that Biden proposed the debate that takes place this week. The challenge was accepted by Trump – note the dynamic here, with Trump clearly not wanting to be seen as ducking out – and the confrontation has been organised, and the terms brokered, by the international broadcaster, CNN.

Another encounter has been set for September, with ABC television. These replace the timetable proposed by the debate commission, which had designated three debates in September and October, and one for the vice-presidential hopefuls.

The most unusual aspect of this week’s debate, however, is its timing, being held as it is before either party’s convention, so before either candidate has been formally nominated by his respective party. The distance between now and the election on 5 November might be thought to make this debate of little direct relevance, but the reverse is true.

With a lively – and not altogether benevolent – discussion going on in US political circles and in public about the state of Joe Biden’s health, and how wise it might be for an 81-year-old to be running for a new four-year presidential term, the genesis of this early debate appears to be a desire in the Biden camp, but also among his detractors inside the Democratic Party, to settle the issue once and for all.

And the signs are conflicting. Questions about Biden’s capacity to run, let alone exercise presidential power for another four years, were recently prompted by video clips from recent official events, showing apparent missteps and mangled words. While supporters claimed that some of these had been edited to be deliberately misleading, this did not apply to all.

On the other hand, Biden gave a barnstorming performance when he gave the State of the Nation address before both Houses of Congress in March – full of energy, aggressive, and landing sharply effective blows on Donald Trump and all his works.

This is the Biden his supporters want to see in the CNN studio in Atlanta, Georgia, on Thursday night. This, however, was a much-rehearsed solo performance, and interaction is probably not Biden’s forte. Trump, as a practised TV performer (as host of the US version of The Apprentice) is far more comfortable in this setting, and less inhibited. Even his mistakes and hyperbole, as well as his notoriously short temper, can be passed off by his fans as just part and parcel of Trump, and become, in their eyes, assets.

This is why Trump’s recent criminal convictions and his mass of other legal troubles will probably have limited impact. The fact that the debate is being held at the CNN Centre in Atlanta, Georgia – the state where Trump faces charges for questioning the 2020 vote count – is unlikely to be any impediment either, because it will be a studio debate with no audience.

On the other hand, Trump’s style may be cramped by an agreement that when one person is speaking, the other person’s microphone will be switched off, preventing the sorts of interruptions that arguably helped Trump in the past.

As for the substance of the debate, there is a view that Biden (on a good day) is more sound on substance than Trump. But this is not quite true. Trump is by far the superior communicator, and while detail may not be his strength, broad policy and principle can be. Biden, for instance, may justifiably claim credit for the relatively healthy state of the US economy, but this is not how it seems to many Americans, and especially potential Trump voters.

Trump on the other hand can reasonably argue that some of his policies – ending the war in Afghanistan, harsher measures against migration across the southern borders, tough talking on trade with China, and initiatives towards a pan-Middle East peace – have in fact been adopted by Biden.

Biden is also burdened with semi-detached involvement in two foreign wars (Ukraine and Gaza), albeit that they were not of his making. Trump’s pledges of non-involvement in foreign wars and forcing Europeans to pay more for their defence have kept the support of many Americans, who are also sceptical of US military help for Ukraine – as was demonstrated with the difficulty Biden faced in getting the latest multibillion-dollar aid package through Congress.

How many of these questions arise and how the candidates respond will be keenly watched by viewers. But their general demeanour and evidence of their mental agility will probably count for more. Trump, after all, is 78 and has suffered accuracy – if not obvious memory – lapses, too. He is risking at least as much as Biden by agreeing to this debate.

A tantalising prospect is that both men come across as entirely unsuited to another four years in the White House, prompting pressure from their party elders to step down, and with possible challenges to their nominations to emerge at one or both conventions.

On the eve of the debate, however, it is all to play for – even though some Americans have started to question the relevance of presidential TV debates. The very concept of prime time, for instance, seems antiquated in the age of 24/7 broadcasting and social media, where it is easy for candidates to appeal to voters directly and without a moderator.

Paradoxically, UK politicians seem to have taken to, or at least accepted, pre-election TV debates this year as never before, with none of the main party leaders refusing to appear or even seriously quibbling with any of the multifarious formats. All the anticipation of this week’s US debate, however, suggests that the appeal of a live debate, as of live sporting fixtures, with its potential for high drama, remains undimmed. This great rite of US presidential passage is not exhausted yet.