Staff Reports
Pollster Frank Luntz and Historian Doris Goodwin Supply Outlandish Claims About the Presidential Debate
On a recent episode of “This Week,” Martha Raddatz hosted a panel discussion with supposed “experts” to dissect the upcoming presidential debate. Among them was Frank Luntz, who served up a hot plate of nonsensical predictions.
Pollster Frank Luntz and Historian Doris Goodwin Offer Up Ridiculous Claims About the Presidential Debate https://t.co/mAv1RXgKrk
— SenSei Roshi (@ODTrooper) June 25, 2024
Luntz boldly declared that the previous two presidential showdowns between Trump and his opponents marked the death knell for democracy. According to him, the use of personal attacks and insults in politics spells doom for democratic principles. Yet, historical examples reveal that mud-slinging among politicians is as old as time.
Even the revered Lincoln and Douglas spared no insults during their famous debates. Howard Taft resorted to fisticuffs over an insult to his spouse, while Teddy Roosevelt and Taft engaged in a war of words during their rivalry. Trump, in Luntz’s eyes, is merely a modern version of this political tradition.
Luntz painted a grim picture of democracy crumbling if future debates echo the hostility of the 2020 face-off. But let’s not lose our heads, Frank. The mutual disrespect between Biden and Trump is hardly groundbreaking. Trump, with his entrepreneurial background, contrasts sharply with Biden’s lengthy political career marked by questionable financial gains. Biden’s laundry list of controversies is no secret, which Trump will undoubtedly exploit.
Joining the discussion were Jon Meacham, a self-proclaimed “never-Trumper,” and Doris Kearns Goodwin, a renowned historian with a soft spot for certain political figures. Goodwin drew parallels between the upcoming debate and the iconic Kennedy-Nixon clash, emphasizing the importance of preparation and appearance in swaying public opinion.
However, Goodwin’s comparison overlooks crucial details. While Kennedy’s debate performance was visually captivating, Nixon outshone him on substance. Biden, in contrast, lacks the charisma and vigor of a youthful Kennedy. Goodwin’s personal ties to the Kennedy camp may color her analysis, but facts speak for themselves.
In the realm of political theater, appearances matter, but substance trumps style. Biden’s questionable past and declining mental acuity make him an unlikely heir to the Kennedy legacy. Trump’s key to victory lies in calibrating his attacks just right, while exposing Biden’s flaws to secure another term.
In the grand scheme of things, Biden is no Jack Kennedy. He shares more in common with the shady Joe Kennedy—a figure marred by corruption, fallibility, and self-righteous deceit.
So, as the stage is set for the next presidential bout, the underdog narrative seems to favor Trump once more. Whether Biden can defy the odds and capture the nation’s imagination remains to be seen
