Lawrence: We live in a country where most commentators declared the liar the debate winner

Presidential debates as a televised event

Zerlina Maxwell highlights the shift in the public's view of presidential debates, indicating that while people tune in to debates to hear substantive discussions on how candidates plan to improve their lives, the debates have become more about performance than substance. The host asserts that presidential debates fail to test the skills necessary for the presidency. They lack in-depth policy discussion and do not reflect the decision-making environment of the Oval Office.

Declined Viewership and Media Influence

Viewership for presidential debates is on the decline, with the most recent debate having the smallest audience of any first presidential debate in the 21st century, engaging only about one third of the people who voted in the last election. Additionally, debate performances receive outsized attention from the media and pundits. The host expresses concern over the media's coverage, which often declares a winner based on performance rather than truth or policy merit. The focus on performance over policy can mislead voters concerning the competencies needed for presidential leadership.

Questioning Debates' Impact on Voter Behavior

The debat ...

According to commentators Stuart Stevens, Joe Biden, and Zerlina Maxwell, Donald Trump’s recent debate performance was marked by false claims and a significant lack of policy understanding, particularly on economic issues such as tariffs.

Trump made numerous false and misleading full claims during the debate, including about the purpose and impact of tariffs.

Trump falsely claimed that tariffs would force China to pay the U.S. money, when in reality tariffs are paid by American consumers.

During the debate, Trump argued that his tariffs would make China "pay us a lot of money." However, commentators like Zerlina Maxwell and O'Donnell point out that Trump's statements misconstrue the nature of tariffs, which are in reality a tax on imported goods that increases prices for American consumers, rather than a direct payment from one government to another.

Trump demonstrated a lack of understanding about the basic function of tariffs as a tax on imported goods that increases prices for consumers.

Stevens describes Trump’s rhetoric as disconnected from the nation, indicating a misrepresentation of the facts. He notes that Trump missed an essential opportunity to present substantial policies and to reposition himself as a learned and improved candidate following his tumultuous presidency. Instead, Trump boasted about tax cuts for the wealthy, demonstrating his incomplete grasp of policy impacts.

The debate moderators did not challenge Trump’s misunderstanding of tariffs, a point of criticism by the host. A necessary question, according to the host, would have been to ask Trump to explain what a tariff is, as he showed a fundamental misunderstanding by not recognizing it as a tax on imported goods paid for by the consumer.

Trump's debate performance highlighted his tendency to make outlandish and unsubstantiated statem ...

Many Democratic operatives, donors, and public figures expressed panic and concern about Biden's perceived weak debate performance.

In the aftermath of a notable debate, Zerlina Maxwell comments on the panic rippling through the ranks of Democratic operatives, donors, and public figures regarding Joe Biden's debate performance. There was palpable concern on television screens as the word "panic" became prevalent. Dreamy thoughts of a magical candidate emerging to take over the Democratic ticket circulated amongst some party members. The New York Times editorial even broached the idea of concocting a process to handpick a more suitable candidate, while acknowledging there was no such existing mechanism and without putting forward a viable name.

In the political ether, there was no shortage of speculation or desperation, but these feelings were not grounded in any substantive polling data. In fact, Biden was polling robustly against Trump, with no other Democrat showing similar traction. Reflecting on political precedent, there were instances such as in 1992 when attempts were made to replace Bill Clinton and again in 2016, discussions to unseat Trump after the Access Hollywood tape surfaced. Within the ranks of the Democratic Party, anxiety brewed over concern about the down-ballot impact a Biden defeat could have on senators, governors, and the party at large. Hakeem Jeffries, who is often in dialogue with donors, exhibited signs of this unease when probed about Biden's certainty as the nominee.

However, polling and focus group Defence implied synonym data indicated that most voters saw Biden's ...

The Biden campaign, following a recent debate, has taken measures to project calm and stability, acknowledging the debate's limited effect on the race's trajectory.

Biden Campaign Maintains Confidence and Stability

Joe Biden has admitted that his debate performance was not his strongest but emphasized his qualifications, including his integrity, job knowledge, problem-solving abilities, and resilience. Kamala Harris echoed the high stakes of the election, highlighted the contrast between the candidates, and expressed confidence in Biden. She also reminded supporters that Biden had already achieved a victory over Trump once.

Lawrence O'Donnell notes the need for the Biden campaign to reassure supporters in the wake of the debate. Meanwhile, Stevens remains confident in Biden’s position, anticipating a decisive victory and suggesting the campaign will continue with its strategy without being overly swayed by the debates.

Initiatives for Calming Supporters

The team is focused on continuing robust fundraising efforts and spreading their message through other campaign events, as well as the media. They aim to manage the concerns of Democratic donors and officials who worry the debate performance could negatively affect Biden’s chances.

Following the debate, Biden hit the campaign trail, continuing to advocate for a wide range of policy changes and promises. Heilemann points out that despite some Democratic donors and party officials feeling panicked after the debate, the Biden campaign is thinking long term, believing in the ample space to offset the debate’s impact on election day.

The Biden campaign had a positive response to a recent event ...

The Supreme Court has released pivotal rulings that reframe administrative power and the scope of legal statutes regarding the January 6th Capitol attack.

In the Loper-Brite case, the Supreme Court overturned the longstanding Chevron doctrine, which had given deference to federal agencies' interpretation of ambiguous statutes.

The Supreme Court's decision in the Loper-Brite case significantly curtails the ability of federal agencies to craft and enforce regulations in areas like the environment, consumer protection, and public health. By overturning Chevron, a case that empowered administrative agencies through Congress's broad statutes like the Food and Drug Act, Clean Air Act, or the Environmental Protection Act, the Court has reshaped the landscape of administrative regulation.

This ruling significantly curtails the ability of federal agencies to regulate in areas like the environment, consumer protection, and public health.

The Supreme Court's ruling limits how much agencies can regulate food and drugs, environmental protection, and other sectors previously managed by agency regulations. This represents a substantial reduction in the authority vested in these agencies to craft regulations critical to protecting public interests.

It represents an aggressive power grab by the Court, overturning a well-established precedent and doctrine that had been in place for decades.

The ruling showcases the Court's aggressive stance in claiming power for itself by overturning Chevron—a well-established precedent that had been referred to 70 times by the Supreme Court and cited 18,000 times in lower courts.

In the case related to the January 6th Capitol attack, the Court narrowed the scope of a statute prohibiting obstruction of official proceedings.

The Court decided that the Justice Department's interpretation of the obstruction statute 1512 C2 was too broad. Instead, they defined it more narrowly, specifying that it should apply more directly to the destruction or interference with documents.

How ...