Final debate brings moment of normalcy to 2020 race

Last night's debate between President Donald Trump and challenger Joe Biden was more civilized and focused on issues. But will that be enough to give Mr. Trump a needed bounce? With almost 50 million ballots already cast, voters may have already decided.

Jeff Chiu/AP
People at an outdoor watch party in San Francisco follow the final debate between President Donald Trump (on screen, left) and Democratic presidential candidate former Vice President Joe Biden, broadcast from Belmont University in Nashville, Tennessee on Oct. 22, 2020.

The second and final presidential debate, it turns out, was actually a debate – a brief interlude of normalcy in an otherwise highly abnormal year, and a reprieve for voters turned off by the candidates’ noxious first faceoff.

President Donald Trump and Democratic challenger Joe Biden spent 90 minutes Thursday sparring over their approach to the coronavirus pandemic, the future of the nation’s health insurance system, and who is best positioned to de-escalate nuclear tensions with North Korea. There were heated clashes but far fewer of the angry interruptions and crosstalk that made the opening debate nearly unwatchable.

A mute button mandated by the debate commission helped enforce decorum, clearing the way for Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden to make their closing arguments to the nation less than two weeks from Election Day. Both men have argued with pride throughout the campaign that there is little overlap between their visions for America, and that was abundantly clear in Thursday’s debate.

It was the Republican president more so than Mr. Biden who entered the night needing to spark a shift in the race, given the public polls that have for weeks showed him trailing both nationally and in some key battleground states. But with nearly 50 million ballots already cast through advance voting, and views of the president long ago hardened among most voters, it appeared unlikely that a more civilized debate alone would significantly recalibrate the contest.

Mr. Trump has struggled throughout the year to shift the political terrain, unable to convince Americans that they should look past a coronavirus pandemic that has killed nearly 225,000 people in the United States and infected more than 8 million. Instead, he’s been saddled by sharply negative assessments of his handling of the public health crisis, including his own COVID-19 illness earlier this month. Mr. Trump was briefly hospitalized, then quickly returned to the campaign trail for rallies that feature little mask-wearing and no attempts at social distancing.

Mr. Trump, who was the chief interrupter and aggressor in the first debate, insisted in Thursday’s debate that the country needed to “learn to live” with the virus and suggested his rival would damage the economy by taking drastic steps to shut down the country. Biden warned of a “dark winter” to come, with cases already on the rise in the U.S. as the weather cools and more activities move indoors, where the virus spreads faster.

“Anyone who’s responsible for that many deaths should not remain as president of the United States,” Mr. Biden said. “I will end this. I will make sure we have a plan.”

Some of Mr. Trump’s advisers and allies had urged him in the lead-up to the debate to take a more traditional approach, focusing less on badgering Mr. Biden and more on drawing his rival out on their policy contrasts. Few had expected he would actually abide by that advice.

And though Mr. Trump was more measured than in the first contest, his more controversial impulses indeed flared at times. His answers were often filled with falsehoods, from his descriptions of initial COVID-19 death projections to his statements about the risks wind turbines pose to birds. He also made repeated references to unverified corruption allegations against Mr. Biden’s son Hunter for business dealings in Ukraine and China.

Mr. Trump’s campaign signaled in recent days that it planned to make the charges against the younger Mr. Biden a centerpiece of their closing argument to voters. In the hours before the debate, the campaign orchestrated a media appearance for a man who claims to have been one of Hunter Biden’s business partners – an attempt to create the kind of made-for-TV drama that worked for Mr. Trump in his 2016 race against Hillary Clinton.

But Mr. Biden isn’t Mrs. Clinton, a candidate whose own negative standing with many Americans rivaled Mr. Trump’s, and the Trump campaign’s efforts to cast him as a corrupt and money-hungry politician don’t appear to be resonate widely outside of Mr. Trump’s base.

If anything, Mr. Trump’s attempts to push the allegations in front of a wider audience in Thursday’s debate only appeared at times to ricochet back to him. After the president claimed without evidence that Mr. Biden has received money from foreign governments, the former vice president noted that his finances are detailed in more than 20 years of tax records he has made public. Mr. Trump has repeatedly refused to release his taxes, insisting he can’t do so while he is under an audit by the Internal Revenue Service.

For some frustrated Republicans, the exchanges over Hunter Biden were a prime example of what has put Mr. Trump at risk of defeat in November: a campaign that still appears to be grasping for a clear message and approach to taking on the Democratic challenger with just a handful of days before the election.

“Throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks was a fine strategy six months ago, but they’re still doing it 12 days from the election with 40 million votes already cast,” said Erick Erickson, a conservative writer.

The real number of votes cast is even higher: By the time Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden took the debate stage, more than 47 million people had already cast ballots.

This story was reported by The Associated Press. 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

QR Code to Final debate brings moment of normalcy to 2020 race
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today