Voters had very little left over from the first US election debate, says director of the Foreign Policy Institute Mika Aaltola.
– Quite muddy, exceptionally talkative, negative and quarrelsome atmosphere. Certainly people didn’t like to watch it. For U.S. democracy, it did frost and bearish service, Aaltola says.
– Probably, if there is a debate in the future, the aim will be to focus on the fact that the format needs to be mastered in some way.
Donald Trumpin and Joe Biden the campaigns were pre-committed to two-minute speeches and not to talk over the other. Trump referred to this rule on his face right at the start.
Aaltola believes that Trump’s tactic was to consider the rail as empathetic to mud printing and to present him in a different light than he is used to. Trump is not hurt by this kind of behavior, because that is how he is used to being seen and is liked by many Americans: Trump does not practice but shoots from the hip what is considered genuine.
Biden went along to some extent and kicked Trump in between. This was actually mandatory.
– Otherwise he would have looked like a throwing bag. Biden was required to do both. He didn’t want him to look weak and old. It was probably pre-calculated in case, if Trump goes into personalities, Biden has such pre-conceived phrases.
Of course, Biden also managed to show himself as his own empathic self, speaking directly to the camera to people, which Aaltola said “Trump’s cries were able”.
Aaltola believes that Trump’s interruptions even helped Biden, as Biden sometimes has a habit of talking “herring salad” when he is allowed to speak freely. The interruptions kept the ex-vice president in the steel.
As a whole, Aaltola considers Biden to be the winner of the debate, as he was at the same time able to be more presidential and empathetic than Trump.
– But they all lost a bit.
“Time of disaster”
Visiting Researcher, Institute of Foreign Policy Maria Annala is on the same lines. He considered the debate horrible, if it could even be called that.
– Pretty disaster in its entirety. Biden, who is not in the reputation of a strong dissertation and has a stuttering problem, did well in the circumstances, Annala says.
On the merits, Aaltola says as an interesting fact that Trump did not talk about his successor at all.
– Usually, when presidents run for a second term, they talk about the next four years. Voters will see if you have something to give and whether there are bangs. For the second term, aspiring to highlight things that have been left out and what still needs to be done. Trump didn’t do this, just praised that the economy and stock prices have risen, and that’s what Biden struck back by talking about the recession.
In Aaltola’s opinion, however, the debates are not terribly significant. The most important is the first half hour of the first debate and at least during that time Trump was unable to improve his shares.
According to Aaltola and Annala, the most shocking point of the debate was the fact that Trump again did not commit to complying with the election result. Annala also points out that, once again, Trump did not condemn supporters of white supremacy when asked about the matter, and even indicated that he would need these if there were fraud in the election.