Video: Dispatch Live Post-Debate Edition

The Dispatch team reacts to the first of three presidential debates.

By
104

This edition of Dispatch Live featuring Sarah, Jonah, Steve and David providing context and analysis after the first presidential debate was recorded September 29, 2020.

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
104
By
Comments (104)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. John Clarke

    Steve, you made a comment suggesting Chris Wallace’s questions were good questions. Can you give me your take on his question of Trump paying only $750 in 2016? Was that a good, valid or relevant question in this forum?

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Blogger Barbie

    All I can think is that I would have botched it pretty badly. Aside from my desire to join JB in "Shut up, man," my counter-instinct would have been to raise a Spock-brow, listen in disdainful silence, and, when asked about it, say, "No, by all means, keep talking. It saves me the trouble of pointing out why you shouldn't hold this office." (That would have won me no fans, I know. And it would have been rude. But yeah, I don't think Trump could have done more for the Democrats if he'd been actively stumping for Biden.)

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Angie

    I had to watch this after the fact because of personal crisis...but, I really enjoyed it and thought you guys did well, with the different way of looking at it, and I share all your concerns.

    I would hope that most on the Dispatch do because I like to believe people like us are what is standing athwart the abyss and we need to be the voices of reason.

    Collapse
  4. Ell

    To paraphrase Jonah, there is no definition of competent, good, ethical, moral person that DT could meet. Are we doomed, best bet is to vote Biden and republican so no harm can be done.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Rich Shipe

    Thanks for the post-debate discussion. My wife and I enjoyed it. I agree that there is not a lot that the moderator could do under those circumstances. A mute button in total control of the moderator would be bad. But why not this as a partial solution following the format of last night: 1) Both candidates are muted while the moderator is asking a question. 2) One candidate is unmuted for 2 minutes and then is muted at the end of two minutes. 3) The other candidate is then unmuted for two minutes. 4) At the end of the second candidates two minutes both mics are unmuted so everyone can talk over each other and show how ridiculous they are and give the opportunity for back and forth. 5) The moderator mutes both mics for the next question.

    Points 1-4 are non-partisan and could easily be fair. Point 5 is where that could break down.

    Why not do that? I assume the campaigns have to agree on it and I assume the campaigns can't agree about muting?

    Collapse
  6. Francisco Hoyos

    I have to give the Dispatch Live post analysis win to Steve Hayes. Not sure what is happening with Jonah as this follows on from his hapless participation in the ill fated "Scotus Deal" cabal. As a longtime reader of his I know it is rare for Jonah to whiff two times in a row. For the moment I am attributing these missteps to his letting David French bend his ear way too much.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    MrJoMo

    I want to know what sympathetic person was kind enough to keep re-filling Steve's wine glass. And did it start mid-way through the debate? For the record, I was one of the ones that shut if off half way through.

    Collapse
  8. Morrison

    I couldn't bear more than ten minutes of "debate," but I thank you for giving what sounded like sensible and considered analysis.

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Tiffany W

    On the Chris Wallace bias issue I was taken back to something I learned student teaching. Often times, when you have a student who is repeatedly disruptive, you develop a radar for it. As a result, though unintentionally, you tend to discipline or notice problem behavior from the student at a higher level than other students, because you have come to expect it and be on the look out for it. Trump's behavior got to Wallace so that he was getting after Trump more, because he was his radar was up to see every bit of Trump's misbehavior. I don't think it was intentional, though it was present.

    Collapse
    1. Joe1776

      That could be but it seemed the format was doomed from the start. He said something like 2 minutes each side to answer a question then "open debate" for 11 minutes. But Wallace kept asking questions and interrupting the "open debate." And it was never clear who was supposed to be speaking. At least I didn't know how the 11 minutes was supposed to be broken up. If anyone knows let me know.


      Trump tried to respond after Biden's 2 minutes and wallace wouldn't let him. But then when Trump had the second question he let Biden respond. Wallace asked trump if he wanted to take his spot and moderate but Wallace kept interrupting the "open debate" so often I thought Wallace wanted to take Biden's spot.

      It is amazing that a presidential debate wouldn't have clear rules about who is supposed to be speaking when and have that explained to everyone including the public. The result should not be surprising to anyone.

      Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Synchronize Your Dogmas (Bill B)

    A couple things bothered me about Biden's performance... although they pale in comparison to Trump's performance.

    It seems to me on the question of "racial sensitivity" training and BLM that Biden may believe that we are still operating on the old Civil Rights notion of fairness and color-blindness rather the current post-modernist Critical Race Theory regime(broadly The Theory). I would hope that someone on his campaign makes clear to him the difference because it seems like he's operating under the misconception that they are the same.

    I like Joe but I so wish he'd have picked up more of the controlled message discipline, clarity and unflappable demeanor of Obama. As much as I loathe Trump telling the President of the United States to "shut up" and calling him a "clown" on a public stage goes too far no matter how apropos. And as satisfying as it may be I don't think it really earns him any points.

    Collapse
    1. JohnO

      It's hard to say what's a misconception or what's believed to just be the more politically savvy way to respond to an issue. Many self proclaimed 'centrists' on the left I think deliberately underplay the various shenanigans of their colleagues further to the left.
      A Democratic candidate has little actual leeway to criticize 'antiracist' ideas and policies which have indeed abandoned the concept of 'each person judged by the content of their character'. If admitting this is true it turns off a lot of less political voters (anti-PC scores very highly in polls including among non-whites). But condemning it is attacking much of the activist Democratic base, and a party needs its base.
      Biden probably realizes the nature of 'antiracism' basically, but would rather conflate it with older racial equality concepts because it's politically more convenient.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Synchronize Your Dogmas (Bill B)

        Indeed, that would either make Biden sharper than the doddering old codger they make him out to be or a charter-member of the Progressive Left. Obviously it's in the Republican's interest to paint him as an SJW-enabler at the least. Frankly, I think it's absurd. But I can see where his lack of clarity might keep Progressives from wandering off the reservation even though they are about as thrilled with Joe as any Trump voter.

        Knocking back that segment of the base will be the first fight of the Biden Administration because they are certainly itching for a fight if he wins.

        Collapse
Load More