
One Year Later: How Joe Biden's disastrous debate performance forced his media allies to turn on him
Biden appeared frail and struggled with a weak voice, delivering rambling answers while frequently appearing to lose his train of thought during the first presidential debate of the 2024 campaign against President Donald Trump in Atlanta. Biden fumbled key answers and famously declared, "We finally beat Medicare," when he apparently meant to say that he beat big pharma.
At one point, as the two candidates traded fire over the issue of immigration, Trump pounced after another rambling answer from Biden.
"I really don't know what he said on this, and I don't think he knows what he said either," Trump said.
DePauw University professor and media critic Jeffrey McCall said the infamous on-stage debacle was one of the rare instances that a presidential debate truly impacted the trajectory of the election.
"Up until that debate, the establishment media were firmly in the Biden campaign camp, covering up evidence that was in plain sight that the president was cognitively and physically in decline. The media shamelessly repeated White House talking points about deep fakes and how vigorous and mentally sharp Biden was," he told Fox News Digital.
"These narratives were false, of course, but that didn't matter to the mainstream reporters as they felt compelled to cover for Biden, in spite of what citizens could see plainly on the rare occasions when Biden was allowed to speak in public," McCall said.
"The primary motive of the activist press, of course, was to try to deny Trump any traction in the election season," he continued. "The poor debate performance by Biden ripped the Band-Aid off, forcing the media to turn on a dime and begin the drumbeat to run Biden out of the race because he was too old and incapable."
The debate meltdown caused an earthquake across the media landscape, ranging from "dismal" reviews to vocal calls on the left for him to withdraw from the 2024 race. CNN's John King put a spotlight on the "very aggressive panic in the Democratic Party" that began in the early minutes of the debate.
"This was a game-changing debate in the sense that right now, as we speak, there is a deep, a wide and a very aggressive panic in the Democratic Party," King told viewers. "It involves party strategists, it involves elected officials, it involves fundraisers. And they're having conversations about the president's performance, which they think was dismal, which they think will hurt other people down the party in the ticket, and they're having conversations about what they should do about it."
King's CNN colleague Kasie Hunt similarly wrote on X, "The voice, open-mouthed look, and visual contrast between President Biden and former President Trump all have Democrats I'm talking to nearly beside themselves watching this debate."
Then-NBC News pundit Chuck Todd admitted that Biden looked like the "caricature" conservatives have painted of him, specifically over his mental acuity. Bloomberg Opinion editor Tim O'Brien wrote on X, "Biden simply comes across as a somewhat dazed punching bag."
"The View" co-host Joy Behar suggested the program was "in mourning" and urged Democrats to pivot away from Biden in order to keep Trump out of the White House.
"That was quite a turnaround from the reporting templates of previous weeks. But the media finally realized, based on the disastrous debate performance, that Biden's chances of winning the election were fading quickly," McCall said.
The debate, which came after a flood of liberal anger towards a Wall Street Journal report that raised questions about the president's viability, was essentially the beginning of the end for Biden's time on the ticket.
New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, a longtime Biden ally, wrote that the debate "made me weep" and realized Biden should step aside.
"I cannot remember a more heartbreaking moment in American presidential campaign politics in my lifetime — precisely because of what it revealed: Joe Biden, a good man and a good president, has no business running for re-election," Friedman wrote.
Fellow Times' columnist Nicholas Kristof wrote on X that he wished "Biden would reflect on this debate performance and then announce his decision to withdraw from the race."
CNN commentator Van Jones, who cried for joy when Biden won the 2020 presidential election, offered an emotional plea for the president to step aside.
The Atlantic's Mark Leibovich penned a piece titled "Time to go, Joe."
"Biden needs to step aside—for the sake of his own dignity, for the good of his party, for the future of the country," Leibovich told readers.
The aggregate website Drudge Report blared the headline "OPERATION: REPLACE BIDEN."
"DEMS SCRAMBLE WITH 130 DAYS TO GO! DEBATE CATASTROPHE," the Drudge Report wrote in all caps. It included a poll question over who would be the best Democrat to replace him out of Hillary Clinton, Gavin Newsom, Gretchen Whitmer, Kamala Harris or "Other."
MSNBC's "Morning Joe" host Joe Scarborough suggested Biden might need to step down.
"If he were CEO, and he turned in a performance like that, would any corporation in America, any Fortune 500 corporation in America keep him on as CEO?" Scarborough asked.
Biden stepped aside the following month, suspending his re-election campaign and quickly offered his "full support and endorsement" for then-Vice President Kamala Harris to take over as the party's presidential nominee.
"The media then quickly got on the Harris bandwagon, with as little scrutiny as they had given Biden in previous months. The media promoted Harris as cool and energetic, and even helped label her as a pop culture 'brat.' The activist media virtually ignored that Harris didn't win any primary votes and was rushed through the nominative convention without having to deal with any opposition," McCall said.
"Overall, the media's poor performance in covering the Biden administration up to the debate and then the media's abrupt turnaround is perhaps the most shameful and egregious example of journalistic malpractice in American history," he added.
"This episode showed that the news industry was not interested in reporting reality to help a citizenry understand the situation. Instead, the mainstream media collectively engaged in activism, demonstrating a cynical attempt to herd public sentiment. That effort eventually failed, with the consequence for the media being a further decline in credibility," McCall concluded.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Alan Dershowitz also said the convicted sex trafficker should be granted immunity to speak about her relationship with Epstein.
Jeffrey Epstein's former lawyer thinks Ghislaine Maxwell should have her 20-year prison sentence commuted—and be given immunity to testify before Congress about the late financier. 'Ghislaine Maxwell is basically serving the sentence that Epstein would have gotten,' lawyer Alan Dershowitz told Newsmax's Sunday Agenda on Sunday. 'She should never be in jail for 20 years. What should happen is, she should be free,' Dershowitz continued. 'She should have her sentence commuted. She should then be called in front of Congress. Have Congress give her total immunity, and then she can tell everything she knows.'
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Guardians president responded to Trump's random tirade about name change
At this present moment in time, you might think Donald Trump would realize he has bigger fish to fry than ranting and raving about professional sports teams changing their nicknames to decidedly non-racist labels. And, well, you'd probably be right. But that didn't stop the 47th U.S. President from going on an arbitrary (and pretty nonsensical, with all things considered) diatribe about how American sports teams like the Washington Commanders and Cleveland Guardians should revert back to their old, decidedly racist nicknames. Somewhere along the way, Trump invented the concept of an "original six" in baseball out of thin air (which doesn't exist and is actually an NHL concept) to invoke the Guardians, for which an "original six" label wouldn't even apply. Again, it seems like Trump may be brazenly trying to drum up some sort of cannon fodder grievance to distract from other, more pressing issues. I mean, I'm just saying that I wouldn't rule it out, is all. Shortly after Trump's Sunday morning shot in the dark, er, I mean, testimonial, Guardians president Chris Antonetti responded to his reference about the franchise's name. In short, Antonetti politely declined, citing an "opportunity to build the [Guardians'] brand" while being "excited" for the future. You know what the amusing kicker is here? It would take years for the Guardians, or anyone in a similar position, to go back and earnestly rebrand. It's not as if it's some overnight, effortless operation that can be done on someone's whim. How long have the Cleveland Guardians had their current nickname? After years of backlash, in late 2020, the Guardians revealed they would drop their old "Indians" nickname after the conclusion of the 2021 season. They have been the Guardians ever since. It was the eighth official name change in franchise history for an organization that officially started as the Columbus Buckeyes/Senators in 1896. It was the fifth name change since they started calling Cleveland home in 1900. This article originally appeared on For The Win: Guardians president politely declines Donald Trump's demand for name change
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Guardians aren't interested in change after President Trump calls for them, Commanders to go back to old offensive nicknames
The Cleveland Guardians sound very good with their decision to rebrand, even after President Donald Trump randomly called for them to revert back to the old 'Indians' nickname on Sunday. Trump made a long post on Truth Social on Sunday calling for both the Guardians and the NFL's Washington Commanders to revert back to their old team names. He even threatened to block the Commanders' impending move back to D.C. and their new stadium if they failed to do so. While not mentioning Trump by name, Guardians president Chris Antonetti made it clear they aren't interested in moving backward on Sunday. 'I understand there are very different perspectives on the decision we made a few years ago, but it's a decision we made and we've gotten the opportunity to build the brand as the Guardians over the last four years and we're excited about the future that's in front of us,' he said, via The Athletic. The Commanders have not addressed Trump's post. The Guardians officially changed their team name ahead of the 2022 season, shortly after they stopped using the old 'Chief Wahoo' logo, which many saw as racist and offensive toward Native Americans. The Commanders retired their old 'Redskins' nickname in 2020. They went by the Washington Football Team briefly before landing on the Commanders. Their old nickname, which had been in use since 1933, was widely seen as an offensive slur and drew plenty of criticism in its final years of use. 'For obvious reasons,' Commanders owner Josh Harris said in August, that can't return. 'I think [Commanders] is now embraced by our team, by our culture, by our coaching staff,' he said earlier this year, via ESPN. 'So we're going with that.' Though it's unclear if the threat of blocking their stadium deal, real or not, will sway the Commanders, both Harris and Antonetti seem very content with their franchises' new names.