To the Editor:
For viewers hoping for a forward-looking, uplifting and edifying debate, they did not get it. Instead, with a few exceptions, what was on display was an embarrassing, concerning, nasty and petty (dueling golf handicaps, really?) 90 minutes of incessant personal attacks, charges and countercharges between two men, a shockingly befuddled and enervated current president, and a breathtakingly mendacious and caustic former president.
Both clearly exhibited a visceral enmity for each other and failed time and time again to speak to the issues of concern to the American people in a compelling manner befitting the occasion.
The mutually problematic performances validate the unpopularity of these two candidates among voters. The reality is that neither man is fit to serve as commander in chief for very different reasons, and this is the sad and stark reality confronting the nation.
Mark Godes
Chelsea, Mass.
To the Editor:
I am a lifetime liberal Democrat who has watched every American presidential debate since 1960.
President Biden failed at the one job he had to do in the debate — persuade American voters that he has the cognitive ability to earn another four years in office. His voice was raspy and wheezy and his answers were often fumbling, rambling, mumbling and incoherent.
He was ineffective even on the issues on which he should be the strongest — abortion rights and Jan. 6. His comment that “we beat Medicare” will be replayed thousands of times.
I believe that Joe Biden is the only prominent Democrat who would lose to Donald Trump. I implore Democratic leaders to go to the White House, thank President Biden for his 50-plus years of service to our nation and urge him to drop out of the race. Then Democrats can nominate a candidate who can win, such as Gov. Gavin Newsom, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Senator Cory Booker or Gov. Josh Shapiro.
Richard Kavesh
Nyack, N.Y.
The writer is a former mayor of Nyack.
To the Editor:
Re “‘God Help Us’: 12 Writers Rate Biden’s Performance at the First Presidential Debate” (Opinion, nytimes.com, June 28):
I’m amazed at the general agreement that Donald Trump won the debate. He did not. Yes, President Biden had a disappointing night and Mr. Trump was vigorous. But his blustery vigor was incoherent and repetitious. When he didn’t outright lie, he exaggerated, continually. He rarely bothered with actual facts and rarely made any sense. His bizarre view of a United States being destroyed by criminal migrants and his pretense that he can solve complex problems immediately would be laughable if it wasn’t so dangerous.
Mr. Biden was not in top form, made mistakes and looked his age, but he made many important points about how his policies are working to help Americans. He decidedly won on content.
Mr. Trump didn’t sound remotely like a person who is honest, realistic and thoughtful enough to be a U.S. president. His performance made it clear that another presidency for Mr. Trump would be an unmitigated disaster. I don’t call this winning a debate.
Susanna Sloat
New York
To the Editor:
The morning after we seem to be asking the wrong question: “Who won the debate?”
The question to ask is, who lost? The answer: We, the people, lost. We lost hope.
Clearly, we need to cut our losses. Now. For very different reasons, neither of the men on the stage Thursday night are fit to lead this nation through the current global complexities, through the dawning A.I. era, through the imminent perils of climate change or through 2028.
Peter Keating
Charlestown, R.I.
To the Editor:
Watching the presidential debate, I remembered my elementary teacher telling our class that “anyone can become president.” Watching the two gentlemen Thursday night, I realized she was right.
Robert Blume
Alexandria, Va.
To the Editor:
For those who missed it for some reason, the 2024 presidential election was held on Thursday, June 27, in Atlanta. God help us all.
Mike Barrett
Ashburn, Va.
To the Editor:
I think there was an unexpected upside to Donald Trump’s trial in New York. He learned to keep quiet. On the campaign trail Mr. Trump floated many possible debate strategies — and rightly chose to behave himself. The muted microphone helped.
Tragically, Mr. Trump didn’t need to interrupt President Biden to win the debate. Mr. Biden interrupted himself so many times that he lost many trains of thought each time he spoke. Mr. Trump’s lies, his appalling first term and the profound dangers of a second term were obscured by the palpable ineptness of Mr. Biden’s performance. As were the truths of Mr. Biden’s successful administration.
Yes, presidencies are not about this kind of performance — but elections can be. If Joe Biden cannot articulate his accomplishments, then how can he win?
Annlinn Kruger
Bar Harbor, Maine
To the Editor:
Re “President Biden, I’ve Seen Enough,” by Nicholas Kristof (The Point, nytimes.com, June 28):
While some part of me feels the allure of Mr. Kristof’s argument that President Biden withdraw from the race, the better angel of my nature sees it for what it is: a disastrous, self-defeating ploy.
Mr. Biden’s withdrawal would mean surrendering every rhetorical inch we have to Donald Trump. Seriously, do we want to give the impression that Mr. Trump is right about our guy being too old, too feckless, too weak? Do we want to deliver that argument to him on the most silver of platters?
Furthermore, consider the logistical nightmare of finding a new candidate, and retooling and reorganizing an entire campaign apparatus comprising thousands of people and hundreds of millions of dollars to serve that new candidate.
Better to stay the course. Keeping Mr. Biden means we may lose the election. Swapping him for anyone else means we certainly will.
Baybars Charkas
State College, Pa.
The writer is president of the Penn State College Democrats.
To the Editor:
While President Biden did not come across as particularly sturdy during the debate, I’m stunned that post-debate analysts focused on that and paid so little attention to the fact that in virtually every turn he had Donald Trump either told a lie or grossly refused to answer the question directed at him.
Mr. Trump seemed to be appreciated for not showing up as maniacal — largely a function of mute buttons. Regardless of the vitality difference, a slightly slowed down president would still have far less chance of starting a nuclear war than a peppy egomaniac. Shame on journalists and analysts for making image matter more than character.
Nancy Dreyfus
Philadelphia
To the Editor:
Regarding your presidential “debate.” Just a view from here in Scotland …
OMG America — are you kidding me???
Amanda Baker
Edinburgh