What The Trump-Clinton Debates Tell Us About The First Trump-Biden Tussle

Unseasonably warm weather has returned to the San Francisco Bay Area, bringing with it the threat of more wildfires, and the adjacent counties continue to be all over the map (pun intended) when it comes to returning to a pre-pandemic social order.

My other bit of Sunday discomfort: an email from Hillary Clinton asking me for money.

As with all things Madame Clinton, it begs questions of relevance (is hers the voice that will pry open your wallet?) and whether 2016's runner-up sees the irony in her own words. For example, this bon mot: "I know that when it's all over, you won't want to look back with regret, wishing you could have done more."

So says the failed candidate who can't let go of the past – and refuses to admit it was her campaign's strategic blunders (too much Iowa, too "blue wall") that gave us the Trump presidency.

With the first Trump-Biden debate fast approaching, I'll leave it to others to speculate just how nasty the evening will be.

Instead, in true Hillary fashion, let's look back to the first time she and Donald Trump met on a debate stage – and what that might tell us about what to expect on Tuesday night in Cleveland (here's a video from four yours ago).

Key Moments? NBC News, which televised the first 2016 general-election debate (live from Hofstra College), listed "six key moments" from the 90-minute tilt: Trump came out of the gate trying his best to annoy Clinton (raising his voice, interrupting her, loudly sniffling); Clinton characterized Trump as a de facto racist; Trump showed no contrition for pushing the Obama "birther" narrative; Trump refused to release his tax returns; both candidates danced around the topic of extramarital tawdriness; Trump sparred with NBC's Lester Holt over his record vis a vis the Iraq war – a preview of four years of "fake news" back-and-forth between Trump and the political press corps.

Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

What this tell us about Tuesday night: expect Trump to play the same head games with Biden – especially the interrupting part, if he anticipates Biden being especially scripted. Don't expect much in the way of contrition (Trump doesn't do apologies). If you want to stage a drinking game, Trump ripping Fox News' Chris Wallace – the entire media, for that matter – would seem a path to inebriation. Who Won? Four years ago, Trump didn't get high marks for his debate performance. However, grading that first encounter was complicated.

Consider this review, courtesy of PBS (hey, I didn't go with MSNBC): "Clinton projected more of what she wanted than Trump, who did not strike the contrast or meet the expectations set up by his own campaign." It goes on: "Clinton surprised by navigating a rather complicated passage through multiple challenges. She had to be energetic but serious, tough but pleasant, candid but charming, forceful but warm and human. It seemed a puzzle, yet she emerged with a smile — and even a bit of a shoulder shimmy late in the debate at a moment when she felt especially good."

Followed by: "By contrast, Trump had just one salient objective — to project a calm and presidential air — and yet, he struggled with it."

Followed by: "The contrast between her complex task and his simple focus was widely noted, and roundly criticized by those who said it set too low a bar for Trump to succeed. Some said he merely needed to show up to gain stature on stage and, thereby, to win no worse than a split decision."

What this tells us about Tuesday: in this debate, it's Trump facing "a rather complicated passage through multiple challenges" – how to put Biden on the defensive, how to better explain his record on Covid, plus how to justify his temperament without coming across as . . . well, too temperamental.

As for Biden, his is the lowest of bars to clear – thanks in part to Trump's insistence that his Democratic isn't compus . Should the former vice president maintain his poise, not lose command of his facts and deliver his lines with clarity and conciseness, what's likely is a repeat of his convention acceptance speech – an adequate performance subject to grade inflation thanks in large part to minimal expectations.

What Came Next? Two weeks after their first debate encounter, Trump and Clinton reconvened at St. Louis' Washington University (video here) – an evening best remembered for its overt hostility (the candidates didn't shake hands) and theatrics (Trump bringing Bill Clinton's sexual assault accusers to the event). This post-debate poll suggested a looming Republican disaster up and down the ticket. And yet that didn't happen. Why? Because Republicans came home in the final days of the election, plus a four-point swing in Trump's favor (he gained 2.3 points and Clinton dropped 1.7 points) among voters who made up their mind in the last fortnight of the election.

What this tells us about 2020: maybe Trump gets the same last-minute benefit of the doubt, but how many undecideds remain?

A recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll claims 11% of eligible voters are still on the fence. And, of course, there's a question of how much of the undecided vote is invisible. In 2016, about one-eighth (12.5%) of the electorate was either undecided or favoring a third-party candidate on Election Day – almost triple 2012's total (4.3%).

It's the scenario Trump's holding out for – late-breakers again going his way, even if it does defy politics' "incumbent rule" which holds that late undecideds go the challenger's way.

Academic thought this may be, it's one more thing for Trump and Biden to debate.

Which might come as welcome relief in an evening largely devoted to two statesmen questioning each other's mental and moral faculties.