Instant Analysis: The Final Presidential Debate
Featured Image: CNN
On Thursday, President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden squared off in the final presidential debate, following the cancellation of the second debate after Trump tested positive for COVID-19. NBC’s Kristen Welker served as the moderator of the event, which took place at Belmont University in Nashville, Tennessee, and received praise from both the left and the right. This was a clear difference from the reaction to Fox News’ Chris Wallace, who was accused by Trump of siding with Biden and criticized by the left for not keeping Trump under control.
In order to remedy the chaos of the first debate, we saw the implementation of muted microphones to allow each candidate to get their point across without interruption. The debate was far more substantive than the previous one, yet it still had some of the same aggressive and confrontational aspects. The two major candidates clashed on the response to COVID-19, race, immigration, national security, personal corruption, climate change, and several other hot-button issues.
Noah Eisman ’22 praised the decision to mute the microphones, saying, “This debate went a lot smoother. It made everyone more respectful.” Despite this, Eisman was frustrated with what he viewed as frequent evasion of questions, saying, “Both Trump and Biden will never answer the questions.”
With most of the community glued to the television, students from Grace had several different takeaways. Henry Pallesen ’21 believed that this debate “Was one of Biden’s best debates this cycle,” while an anonymous student claimed, “Trump had his best performance yet.” Manavi Sinha ’21 believed that there was no clear winner from the debate. However, she believed, “Trump did very well.” In addition to being a Biden supporter, Sinha, who has also been phone banking for him, added, “I think more than anything [the debate] made me nervous for swing voters. Watching from what I’ve gathered from talking to Florida undecideds, they appeal strongly to Trump speaking cohesively and making Joe [Biden] seem economically criminal, both as a socialist and a rich person.” Nicholas von Perfall ’21 had a more cynical view of the debate, saying, “It’s a sorry state to see two aging candidates, one a schoolyard bully and failed real estate developer and the other, a bumbling old man, unable to fulfill his promise as an orator.” However, von Perfall has a clear choice when it comes to who his preferred candidate is, saying, “Biden represents a candidate who listens to his constituents, has political experience spanning four decades, and, most importantly, his platform is one of unity, which during these tumultuous times is more essential than ever before.”
As many Americans have already participated in early-voting, Americans are asking, did the debate matter? Eisman does not think so, saying, “I don’t think debates do anything. They don’t convince anyone to switch who they were initially planning to vote for.” With Trump down in the polls by a relatively large margin, Pallesen believes “Trump needed to make a splash in order to dramatically alter the course of this race, and he did not do that.”
While students varied on who they thought performed the best, the Grace community’s overall consensus was that the final presidential debate was a far more propper event than the theatrics in late September. Whether this debate will be of any significance to the election result remains to be seen, however, the students agreed they received a debate that the American people deserved––one that was substantive and worth watching.