30 SEPTEMBER

A clear winner? Debatable.

Today’s presidential debate saw Joe Biden and Donald Trump go head-to-head for the first time in the campaign. Unsurprisingly, the tension was palpable, but even the extremes from the 2016 debates pale in comparison. Seasoned moderator and Fox News host, Chris Wallace, was unable to reign in the discussion in the swing state of Ohio. The debate wound through some of President Trump's key campaign talking points — covering mail in ballots, law and order and the economy — but the amount of talking over the top of each other led to an overall incoherence. Rather than seeing whether red or blue wins the day, the debate may test whether respect and decorum can exist in the 2020 campaign. All eyes turn now to next week’s vice-presidential debate.

While the race toward the election heats up, the policy implications have never been higher. Yesterday, Non-Resident Fellow Fiona Cunningham published Managing US-China nuclear risks: A guide for Australia, a research brief examining the increasingly complex nuclear relationship between the United States and China, the risks therein and Australia’s policy options in response. As the brief was covered in the The Australian, there are growing risks in both the inadvertent and deliberate use of nuclear weapons in our region, and it is in Australia’s interest to pursue a more proactive strategy to mitigate the possibility of nuclear escalation.

VIDEO

A conversation with election analyst Charlie Cook

Did you miss our recent webinar event with world-renowned election analyst Charlie Cook? Editor and publisher of The Cook Political Report and widely regarded as one of the best non-partisan trackers of Congressional races, Charlie Cook appeared alongside US Studies Centre CEO Professor Simon Jackman and Non-Resident Senior Fellow Bruce Wolpe to discuss the state of the race, as 3 November looms on the horizon. Watch the full discussion HERE.

Catch this and other recent webinars on the USSC YouTube channel!

NEWS WRAP

Tax time troubles for Trump

Long-awaited Trump tax records leaked
President Trump's taxes have again sparked campaign controversy when the New York Times reported the President's tax information from 2005-2017. The income tax records obtained by the Times revealed Trump paid only $750 in federal income taxes the year he won the presidency, and that he largely paid no income taxes over the past 15 years predominantly due to reporting losing much more money than he made. READ MORE HERE
Biden, Harris release tax returns prior to first debate
Following the Trump tax media storm, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris publicly disclosed their 2019 tax returns. Taxes were hotly discussed during the first presidential debate, with Trump declaring he "didn't want to pay taxes", while Biden retorted the president takes "advantage of the tax code". READ MORE HERE
COVID still polarising in US, but not in Australia
According to new polling from the USSC, LaTrobe University and the University of Melbourne, even six months on from the start of restrictions, support for COVID-19 restrictions remains split along party-lines in the United States, but not in Australia. The polling, covered across the Nine mastheads, shows 83 per cent of Coalition voters support fines for violating restrictions as opposed to 20 per cent of Republican voters. READ MORE HERE
Appellate Judge Amy Coney Barrett nominated for SCOTUS
Amy Coney Barrett, a federal judge on the US Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, has been nominated by President Trump to replace the late Supreme Court Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg. During the first presidential debate, Trump emphasised that the powers of the president are available to him for the full term while Biden pushed for a decision after the election, "so that the American people can have their say." READ MORE HERE

These are the political equivalent of ghost stories. This election would have to get a heck of a lot closer for any of those things to even be remotely relevant.

Election Analyst Charlie Cook
On President Trump's refusal to commit to a "peaceful transition of power"
USSC Webinar
28 September 2020

ANALYSIS

The winner of the US presidential debate was chaos

Jared Mondschein
Senior Research Fellow

In the 2016 election between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, many conventional analysts — as well as Clinton supporters — said it was clear the former secretary of state had won each one of their debates.

Clinton, they posited, provided strong data points and policy analysis that made clear she was more presidential and appropriate for the job.

Trump supporters, on the other hand, argued it was undeniable he had, in fact, won the debates because he ridiculed and mocked Clinton in a way that she deserved.

The Clinton-Trump debates in 2016 were like Rorschach tests — your perception of them depended on your opinion of the candidates.

Four years later, there appears to be more consensus about the clear winner of the first debate between Trump and Biden: chaos.

With countless interruptions, personal attacks and name calling, some have already called it the worst debate they’ve ever seen.

But the debate, in many ways, mirrors where America is right now: this is perhaps the worst political climate the country has seen in modern history. People are angry and using raised voices while refusing to agree upon a basic set of facts.

The ultimate question, however, is whether this will change any opinions of US voters. Nearly 90 per cent of voters came into the debate saying their minds were already made up about who they will be voting for. Many voters have, in fact, already submitted their ballots.

But given Trump’s 2016 victory was ultimately reliant on a margin of fewer than 80,000 votes across Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, even the smallest of advantages could prove critical in the election.

Initial polling conducted after the debate indicated Biden may have won a slim advantage over Trump. What is much clearer, however, is who lost: US voters.

This is an excerpt from a larger article in The Conversation.

VIRTUAL EVENT

Election Watch: US politics web series

featuring former Republican Senator Jeff Flake and US foreign policy expert Gorana Grgic

The October episode of Election Watch, the Perth USAsia Centre and United States Studies Centre's monthly US politics web series, will feature special guests Jeff Flake, a Republican who represented Arizona in the US Senate from 2013 to 2019, and Dr Gorana Grgic, Lecturer in US Politics and Foreign Policy at the United States Studies Centre.

Flake and Grgic will join USSC CEO Simon Jackman and Perth USAC CEO Gordon Flake for their insights on the top stories in US politics.

WHEN:
Friday, 2 October, 1pm AEST (Sydney) 11am AWST (Perth)

COST:
Free, but registration is essential

REGISTER NOW

BY THE NUMBERS

Ohio polling

2020 polls: 1% Biden lead | 2016 error: 6.9% toward Trump

Today’s debate was in Ohio. With 18 electoral votes it is the third largest swing state in 2020. The average of current polls show Biden with a 1 per cent lead in the polls. While in 2016, the final polls tipped Trump to win Ohio by 1.2 per cent, they were 6.9 percentage points shy of the actual result. If the election were held today and polls are as wrong as they were in 2016, it would indicate a Trump victory by 5.9 per cent.

Read recent USSC polling analysis The perils of pre-election polling for more information.