In the late 1970s, playing video games became a ubiquitous and beloved childhood activity. Today, many adults continue to be enthusiastic gamers, playing both new releases and the nostalgic games of their childhoods. A new study suggests that a childhood history of playing video games not only makes an adult a better gamer, but it also provides lasting cognitive advantages. In particular, the puzzle-solving techniques critical to gaming success may help improve 3D visualization skills, quick thinking, and memory.
The gaming study by the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC) appeared recently in the prestigious journal Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. The researchers curated a group of 27 adults under 40 years of age, including some with childhood gaming experience and others who had none. The participants were first tested on their baseline cognitive skills. Then each participant trained by playing Super Mario 64 for 10 days. Some subjects were also treated with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) during this time—a non-invasive magnetic treatment aimed at producing boosts in cognitive functioning. After the 10 days, all subjects were retested. Fifteen days later, these tests were repeated one final time.
The researchers hoped to find lasting boosts in cognitive function among participants who received TMS. Instead, they found the procedure had no measurable impact. However, a childhood history of gaming did predict greater success on the initial cognitive assessment. After the video game training, those without prior experience showed significant gains, catching up to their peers on the second assessment. The researchers concluded that those who played as kids maintained greater visual processing skills and memory functions, even years after playing.
Although a small sample size, the study offers insight into some of the cognitive benefits of video games. Video games range in subject matter, and more evidence is needed to suggest any net positive or negative long-term effects. However, those who remember their childhood Nintendo or PlayStation fondly may be pleased to know that the brainy benefits of their early gaming likely remains to this day.
Bussa Krishna in February at his shrine to President Trump, at his home in the southern Indian state of Telangana. Mr. Krishna died on Sunday. Vinod Babu/Reuters
NEW DELHI — In India, where many admire President Trump, one rural farmer worshiped him like a god, praying to a life-size statue of Mr. Trump in his backyard every morning.
“At first everyone in the family thought he was mentally disturbed, but he kept at it and everyone eventually came around,” said Vivek Bukka, a cousin of the farmer, Bussa Krishna.
When Mr. Trump announced he had the coronavirus, it devastated Mr. Krishna. The farmer posted a tearful video on Facebook, in which he said: “I feel very sad that my god, Trump, has contracted the coronavirus. I ask everyone to pray for his speedy recovery.”
He stopped eating to show solidarity with his idol’s suffering from Covid-19, his family said. He fell into a deep depression. On Sunday, he died of cardiac arrest.
Mr. Krishna’s devotion had made him into a minor celebrity, and he was the subject of some national headlines. His death made news across India.
Mr. Vivek said his cousin had been physically fit and had no health problems or history of heart disease. There is no evidence linking Mr. Krishna’s death to his fasting.
There is no indication that the White House or Mr. Trump — who said he had recovered from the virus and felt “powerful” after being treated with a cocktail of drugs — was aware of his biggest fan in India. Many of the country’s urban intellectuals dislike the American president, and he is regularly mocked on Indian social media platforms.
But the president has support in other corners of Indian society. A February study by the Pew Research Center found that 56 percent of people surveyed in India said that Mr. Trump would “do the right thing when it comes to world affairs,” up from 16 percent when he was elected.
Mr. Trump’s popularity in some parts of India is striking because the cult of personality he has tried to cultivate — of an unapologetically brash figure leading the United States to a bright new future while espousing “America First” — mirrors how India’s prime minister, Narendra Modi, projects himself to his own supporters.
Mr. Krishna, a widowed farmer in his thirties who lived in the village of Konne in the southern state of Telangana, had been a Trump devotee for about four years. He became a fan when the president appeared to him in a dream, his relatives said, and predicted that India’s national cricket squad would beat its archrival, Pakistan, in a match the next day.
India won, Mr. Vivek said, “and from that day he started worshiping Donald Trump.”
Mr. Krishna’s devotion to President Trump made him a minor celebrity in India. Vinod Babu/Reuters
But the farmer also admired the president as a leader, said Mr. Vivek, a 25-year-old accountant who lives near the southern city of Hyderabad. His cousin did not speak English, and the local news outlets where he lived paid scant attention to American politics. So he relied on Mr. Vivek to translate articles and videos for him.
Vemula Venkat Goud, Konne’s village headman, said that the young farmer had also been drawn to Mr. Trump’s “straightforward ways and blunt speech.”
Neighbors did not know much about American politics and had no opinion of Mr. Trump, he added. But since Mr. Krishna was such a huge fan, they embraced his cause as a courtesy, even if it struck them as a little odd.
As Mr. Krishna’s devotion to Mr. Trump intensified, he began fasting every Friday in support, and he commissioned the construction of a shrine in his backyard with the life-size statue, Mr. Vivek said. He worshiped it with Hindu rituals for an hour or two each morning, as one might when praying to Krishna, Shiva, Ganesha or other gods in the Hindu pantheon.
Mr. Krishna was drawn to Mr. Trump’s “straightforward ways and blunt speech,” said the headman of his village.. Vinod Babu/Reuters
One video of Mr. Krishna that has circulated widely online shows him performing a prayer ritual, or pooja, before an altar that holds a picture of Mr. Trump.
In another, he wears a T-shirt that reads “Trump” in white block letters as he pours water over the head of the statue, which is wearing a red tie and giving a thumbs-up. The Trump statue has a garland of fresh flowers around its neck and a red tilak — a traditional symbol that is made of vermilion or sandal paste, and used in religious ceremonies — on its forehead.
Mr. Krishna’s creation of a statue in Mr. Tump’s likeness is not unique. An architect built a giant wooden statue of Mr. Trump with vampire’s teeth in Slovenia, the native country of the first lady, Melania Trump. Some critics denounced it as a “waste of wood.”
That statue’s creator, Tomaz Schlegl, an architect, had a clear vision, and message, in mind. “I want to alert people to the rise of populism, and it would be difficult to find a bigger populist in this world than Donald Trump,” he told Reuters.
A life-size wooden sculpture of Mrs. Trump near the town of Sevnica in eastern Slovenia, where she grew up, was set on fire. The commissioning artist replaced it with a bronze statue.
As for Mr. Krishna, he made a valiant attempt to meet his idol. He traveled to the United States Embassy in New Delhi ahead of Mr. Trump’s trip to India in February to try to arrange a meeting, Mr. Venkat, the village headman, said.
“It’s really sad that his dream never came true,” he added.
Mr. Krishna holding his mobile phone. Vinod Babu/Reuters
Mr. Trump later addressed a stadium packed with 100,000 cheering attendees in Ahmedabad, the heart of Mr. Modi’s political home base.
Mr. Krishna kept the faith until the end.
When he learned of Mr. Trump’s coronavirus diagnosis, he locked himself in his room, Mr. Vivek said.
“We tried to force him to eat, but he barely ate anything,” he said.
On Sunday, Mr. Krishna collapsed, and his relatives took him to the hospital. He was pronounced dead on arrival.
Mr. Krishna is survived by his parents and his 7-year-old son.
Mr. Venkat said villagers were discussing how best to maintain their neighbor’s Trump shrine.
The city center of Beirut in a view from the Mar Mikhael neighborhood. Diego Ibarra Sanchez for The New York Times
BEIRUT, Lebanon — After the August port explosion that disfigured much of Beirut, many compared the city to a phoenix that would rise again.
“We are staying,” read some signs in the famous nightlife district of Mar Mikhael, one of the worst-hit neighborhoods. Down the main thoroughfare in Gemmayzeh, another badly damaged area whose graceful old buildings housed storied families and Beirut newcomers alike, it was the same: Residents vowed to return, and banners on buildings promised to rebuild.
Two months later, some businesses have begun to reopen, and teams of volunteer engineers and architects are working to save heritage buildings. But even the bullish say they do not believe a full recovery is possible, pointing to the lack of government leadership and resources, combined with an imploding economy that has put even basic repairs beyond the wallets of many residents.
If Beirut is a phoenix, it has already endured too much, they say: civil war; war with Israel; incompetent and corrupt governments; huge protests, the coronavirus and now this.
A hall inside Sursock Palace, a 19th-century landmark in Beirut. Diego Ibarra Sanchez for The New York Times
Though they were traditionally Christian neighborhoods, Mar Mikhael, Gemmayzeh and the surrounding areas attracted young Lebanese of different religious backgrounds, as well as foreigners and tourists, to its bars, cafes and art galleries.Gay, lesbian and transgender people felt safe. Entrepreneurs and designers moved in. Dusty hardware stores sat a few doors down from trendy coffee shops.
The explosion has threatened that unique social fabric, locals say.
And not all are ready to return. It would feel like erasing what happened, a few said — like walking blithely over a grave.
Tarek Mourad, owner of Demo Bar
At the edge of Gemmayzeh, between a church and an antique chandelier shop, a narrow street darts up the hill at odd angles. Locals call it Thieves’ Lane, from long ago, when it was a quick getaway route from the authorities.
Over the last year, antigovernment protesters dodging tear gas have often sprinted the same way and ducked into Demo, a bar with pleasantly worn wooden benches and experimental music thrumming from the D.J. booth.
Its owner, Tarek Mourad, 38, opened Demo with a partner a decade ago, and it became a Beirut classic. The bar’s glass front was smashed in the explosion, and Mr. Mourad turned to GoFundMe to replace it.
Tarek Mourad owns Demo, a bar in the Gemmayzeh neighborhood, which was badly damaged in the explosion. Diego Ibarra Sanchez for The New York Times
“When you spend years planting something,” he said, “and suddenly there’s something that cuts the plant down, you hope the roots are there.”
But he was not sure whether everything that made Demo what it had been would return — the small shops and bakeries nearby that gave the street life, neighbors who stopped in for coffee or a beer.
“Everyone that works at Demo, or lives around it, needs to get back and get their lives back,” he said. “But it’s not just Demo, it’s a whole neighborhood. For years, I walked through Gemmayzeh daily. Now it’s not there anymore. What form it’ll take, I don’t know.”
Fadlo Dagher, architect
Fadlo Dagher’s family began building their pale-blue villa on the main street of Gemmayzeh in 1820. To him, the houses in the neighborhood — and throughout Beirut — represent the tolerant, diverse, sophisticated country Lebanon was meant to be.
“This is the image of openness,” he said, “the image of a cosmopolitan culture.”
The houses — generally wide dwellings a few stories high, with red tiled roofs and tall, street-facing triple-arched windows opening onto a central hall — began appearing in Beirut by the mid-1800s, after the city grew into a hub for trade between Damascus, Syria, and the Mediterranean.
The style blended architectural ideas from Iran, Venice and Istanbul. While the new houses’ walls were of Lebanese sandstone, their marble floors and columns were imported from Italy, roof tiles from Marseille, France, and cedar timbers from Turkey.
Fadlo Dagher, an architect, in his family’s 19th-century villa, which he plans to restore. Diego Ibarra Sanchez for The New York Times
Despite war, neglect and a 20th-century fashion for high-rises, many of the old houses stood untouched in Gemmayzeh and Mar Mikhael until the explosion, which seriously damaged about 360 structures built between 1860 and 1930.
To abandon them, Mr. Dagher said, would be to jettison one of the few shared legacies of a perpetually fractured country.
“I’d like to imagine that what is happening here, this diversity, this mixed city, that it still exists, that maybe it can reflourish,” he said. “Is it mission impossible? I don’t know. But, OK, call me a dreamer. This is what I want it to be.”
Habib Abdel Massih, store owner
Habib Abdel Massih, his wife and son were in the small corner convenience store he owns in Gemmayzeh when the neighborhood blew apart, injuring all three. He has spent his whole life in the neighborhood, watching it change from quiet residential area to cultural destination.
Habib Abdel Massih owns a store in Gemmayzeh. Diego Ibarra Sanchez for The New York Times
“Suddenly, everything changed,” he said. “Most of the people I used to know have left.”
He worried that rebuilding would prove too expensive, that neither original residents nor newcomers would come back.
A few weeks after the blast, Mr. Abdel Massih, 55, was preparing to reopen his store. A cast sheathed his foot. He was selling water and coffee, he said. Not much else.
Roderick and Mary Cochrane, owners of Sursock Palace
Sursock is the name of the neighborhood up the hill from Gemmayzeh. It is also the name of the area’s main street, the museum on that street, the palace a few doors down and the family that lives in that palace. All are now damaged.
Lady Yvonne Sursock Cochrane grew up in the palace, which was built by her forebears in the mid-1800s. She spent decades protecting it — first from Lebanon’s 15-year civil war (by staying put), and then from overdevelopment (by buying up neighboring properties). She was injured in the Aug. 4 explosion as she sat on her terrace, debris falling in a neat border around her chair. She died on Aug. 31, aged 98.
Her last look at the house showed this: roof partly caved in; frescoed ceilings more holes than plaster; marble statues shattered; Ottoman-era furniture splintered; antique tapestries torn; intricately latticed windows blown in.
Mary Cochrane at Sursock Palace. “You restore things because it’s part of the history,” said Ms. Cochrane, whose family owns the palace. Diego Ibarra Sanchez for The New York Times
Her son and daughter-in-law, Roderick and Mary Cochrane, are rebuilding. They do not yet know the price, only that it will be astronomical.
“You restore things because it’s part of the history,” said Ms. Cochrane, an American. She was hospitalized after the explosion but recovered. “We take care of it for future generations.”
Mr. Cochrane added: “Mar Mikhael and Gemmayzeh should remain a place for Lebanese, for small designers, small shops, small business owners. Without these, there’d be no Beirut. We’d be a city like Dubai.”
Bashir Wardini, an owner of Tenno and Butcher’s BBQ
Just off the main drag of Mar Mikhael — where the sound of laughter, clinking glasses and pounding car stereos once floated up from the pubs to the balconies nearly every night — sit Butcher’s BBQ and, nearby, a cocktail bar, Tenno. The main street is dark and quiet now; many homes remain uninhabitable.
But Tenno is open.
Bashir Wardini and his partners raised about $15,000 through GoFundMe, and in mid-September muted their doubts and reopened to host a friend’s birthday drinks. They had not been sure customers were ready to return. They were not sure they were ready, either.
Bashir Wardini supervising the reconstruction of his pub. Diego Ibarra Sanchez for The New York Times
“Many of us, and our customers, said, ‘No, you have to reopen, you have to move on, because the street needs to feel some kind of life again,’” Mr. Wardini said.
Tenno looks itself again, but the rest of the neighborhood feels wrong. Mr. Wardini said still he avoids going there, unless he has to.
“It takes a few drinks too many to forget the surroundings,” he said.
Drugmaker Johnson & Johnson said Monday it has paused the advanced clinical trial of its experimental coronavirus vaccine because of an unexplained illness in one of the volunteers.
“Following our guidelines, the participant’s illness is being reviewed and evaluated by the ENSEMBLE independent Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) as well as our internal clinical and safety physicians,” the company said in a statement. ENSEMBLE is the name of the study.
“Adverse events — illnesses, accidents, etc. — even those that are serious, are an expected part of any clinical study, especially large studies.” The pause was first reported by Stat News.
Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen vaccine arm is developing the shot. The company did not say what the unexplained illness was, but one point of clinical trials is to find out if vaccines cause dangerous side effects. Trials are stopped when they pop up while doctors check to see if the illness can be linked to the vaccine or is a coincidence.
“Based on our strong commitment to safety, all clinical studies conducted by the Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson have prespecified guidelines. These ensure our studies may be paused if an unexpected serious adverse event (SAE) that might be related to a vaccine or study drug is reported, so there can be a careful review of all of the medical information before deciding whether to restart the study,” the company said.
“We must respect this participant’s privacy. We’re also learning more about this participant’s illness, and it’s important to have all the facts before we share additional information,” the company added.
“Serious adverse events are not uncommon in clinical trials, and the number of serious adverse events can reasonably be expected to increase in trials involving large numbers of participants. Further, as many trials are placebo-controlled, it is not always immediately apparent whether a participant received a study treatment or a placebo.”
Such a pause is not immediately concerning, agreed Dr. Ashish Jha, the dean of the Brown University School of Public Health.”This is completely expected, and it’s just a reminder how ridiculous it is to try and meet a political timeline of having a vaccine before Nov. 3,” Jha told CNN’s Chris Cuomo.
“The Johnson & Johnson trial is the biggest trial of the vaccine that I know of — 60,000 people,” Jha said. “Within that trial you’d expect a few pauses.”
The drugmaker said there is a “significant distinction” between a study pause and a regulatory hold on a clinical trial.
“A study pause, in which recruitment or dosing is paused by the study sponsor, is a standard component of a clinical trial protocol,” Johnson & Johnson said.
“A regulatory hold of a clinical trial is a requirement by a regulatory health authority, such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. As outlined in our transparency commitments, we proactively disclose any regulatory hold of a pivotal clinical trial.”
This is the second Phase 3 coronavirus vaccine trial to be paused in the US. AstraZeneca’s vaccine trial was paused last month because of a neurological complication in a volunteer in Britain. While the trial resumed there and in other countries, it remains paused in the United States while the US Food and Drug Administration investigates.
“We want the vaccine to be safe and we’ve got to let the process play out and it’s going to take a while,” Jha said. “To me it’s reassuring that companies are acting responsibly and pausing when they need to.”
Johnson’s Phase 3 trial started in September. It’s one of six coronavirus vaccines being tested in the US, and one of four in the most advanced, Phase 3 stage. It requires just one dose of vaccine, so federal officials have said they hope testing may be completed a bit faster than other vaccines, including those being made by Moderna and Pfizer, which require two doses.
A US teenager who has the world record for the longest female legs is encouraging people with unique physical attributes to “embrace” them.
Maci Currin from Texas has a right leg that is 134.3cm long and a left leg that is 135.3cm long.
She stands at 6ft 10in and it wasn’t until she was offered a custom-made pair of leggings two years ago that she realised she could have record-breaking legs.
Maci urges people to ’embrace’ their unique physical attributes.
The 17-year-old said her message to people with unusual physical attributes is “don’t hide it – embrace it” and she hopes her record title will inspire other tall women.
While she finds it difficult to get through some doorways, into cars, or into some clothes, her long legs have advantages when she is playing on her school’s volleyball team.
According to Guinness World Records, Maci wants to attend university in the UK.
Maci took the world record from Russia’s Ekaterina Lisina.
But, despite her long legs, she is a long way from being the tallest woman, a record held by Sun Fang from China, who stands at 7ft 3in.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., meets with reporters at the Capitol in Washington, Thursday, Oct. 8, 2020. Negotiations between Pelosi and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin for an additional coronavirus aid package were abruptly halted last week by President Donald Trump. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
WASHINGTON (AP) — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is questioning President Donald Trump’s fitness to serve, announcing legislation Thursday that would create a commission to allow Congress to intervene under the 25th Amendment to the Constitution and remove the president from executive duties.
Just weeks before the Nov. 3 election, Pelosi said Trump needs to disclose more about his health after his COVID-19 diagnosis. She noted Trump’s “strange tweet” halting talks on a new coronavirus aid package — he subsequently tried to reverse course — and said Americans need to know when, exactly, he first contracted COVID as others in the White House became infected. On Friday, she plans to roll out the legislation that would launch the commission for review.
“The public needs to know the health condition of the president,” Pelosi said, later invoking the 25th Amendment, which allows a president’s cabinet or Congress to intervene when a president is unable to conduct the duties of the office.
Trump responded swiftly via Twitter.
“Crazy Nancy is the one who should be under observation. They don’t call her Crazy for nothing!” the president said.
The president’s opponents have discussed invoking the 25th Amendment for some time, but are raising it now, so close to Election Day, as the campaigns are fast turning into a referendum on Trump’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic. More than 210,000 Americans have died and millions more infected by the virus that shows no signs of abating heading into what public health experts warn will be a difficult flu season and winter.
Trump says he “feels great” after being hospitalized and is back at work in the White House. But his doctors have given mixed signals about his diagnosis and treatment. Trump plans to resume campaigning soon.
Congress is not in legislative session, and so any serious consideration of the measure, let alone votes in the House or Senate, is unlikely. But the bill serves as a political tool to stoke questions about Trump’s health as his own White House is hit by an outbreak infecting top aides, staff and visitors, including senators.
In a stunning admission, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Thursday that he had stopped going to the White House two months ago because he disagreed with its coronavirus protocols. His last visit was Aug. 6.
“My impression was their approach to how to handle this was different from mine and what I insisted we do in the Senate, which is to wear a mask and practice social distancing,” McConnell said at a campaign stop in northern Kentucky for his own reelection.
On Friday, Pelosi along with Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., a constitutional law professor, plan to roll out the legislation that would create a commission as outlined under the 25th Amendment, which was passed by Congress and ratified in 1967 as way to ensure a continuity of power in the aftermath of President John F. Kennedy’s assassination.
It says the vice president and a majority of principal officers of the executive departments “or of such other body as Congress” may by law provide a declaration to Congress that the president “is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” At that point, the vice president would immediately assume the powers of acting president.
Trump abruptly halted talks this week on the new COVID aid package, sending the economy reeling, his GOP allies scrambling and leaving millions of Americans without additional support. Then he immediately reversed course and tried to kickstart talks.
It all came in a head-spinning series of tweets and comments days after he returned to the White House after his hospitalization with COVID-19.
First, Trump told the Republican leaders in Congress on Tuesday to quit negotiating on an aid package. By Wednesday he was trying to bring everyone back to the table for his priority items — including $1,200 stimulus checks for almost all adult Americans.
Pelosi said Thursday that Democrats are “still at the table” and her office resumed conversations with top negotiator Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin.
She said she told Mnuchin she was willing to consider a measure to prop up the airline industry, which is facing widespread layoffs. But that aid, she said, must go alongside broader legislation that includes the kind of COVID testing, tracing and health practices that Democrats say are needed as part of a national strategy to “crush the virus.”
Normally, the high stakes and splintered politics ahead of an election could provide grounds for a robust package. But with other Republicans refusing to spend more money, it appears no relief will be coming with Americans already beginning early voting.
Democrats have made it clear they will not do a piecemeal approach until the Trump administration signs off on a broader, comprehensive plan they are proposing for virus testing, tracing and other actions to stop its spread. They have scaled back a $3 trillion measure to a $2.2 trillion proposal. The White House presented a $1.6 trillion counter offer. Talks were ongoing when Trump shut them down.
“There’s no question that the proximity to the election has made this much more challenging,” McConnell said.
WASHINGTON — The first presidential debate between President Trump and Joseph R. Biden Jr. unraveled into an ugly melee Tuesday, as Mr. Trump hectored and interrupted Mr. Biden nearly every time he spoke and the former vice president denounced the president as a “clown” and told him to “shut up.”
In a chaotic, 90-minute back-and-forth, the two major party nominees expressed a level of acrid contempt for each other unheard-of in modern American politics.
Mr. Trump, trailing in the polls and urgently hoping to revive his campaign, was plainly attempting to be the aggressor. But he interjected so insistently that Mr. Biden could scarcely answer the questions posed to him, forcing the moderator, Chris Wallace of Fox News, to repeatedly urge the president to let his opponent speak.
“Will you shut up, man?” Mr. Biden demanded of Mr. Trump at one point in obvious exasperation. “This is so unpresidential.”
Yet Mr. Biden also lobbed a series of bitingly personal attacks of his own.
“You’re the worst president America has ever had,” he said to Mr. Trump.
“In 47 months I’ve done more than you have in 47 years,” Mr. Trump shot back, referring to his rival’s career in Washington.
The president’s bulldozer-style tactics represented a significant risk for an incumbent who’s trailing Mr. Biden because voters, including some who supported him in 2016, are so fatigued by his near-daily attacks and outbursts. Yet the former vice president veered between trying to ignore Mr. Trump by speaking directly into the camera to the voters, and giving in to temptation by hurling insults at the president. Mr. Biden called Mr. Trump a liar and a racist.
Mr. Trump peppered his remarks with misleading claims and outright lies, predicting that a coronavirus vaccine was imminent when his own chief health advisers say otherwise, claiming that his rollback of fuel-efficiency standards would not increase pollution and insisting that a political adviser, Kellyanne Conway, had not described riots as useful to Mr. Trump’s campaign, even though she did so on television.
And even as he went on the offensive against Mr. Biden on matters of law and order, Mr. Trump declined to condemn white supremacy and right-wing extremist groups when prompted by Mr. Wallace and Mr. Biden. When Mr. Wallace asked him whether he would be willing to do so, Mr. Trump replied, “Sure,” and asked the two men to name a group they would like him to denounce.
But when Mr. Biden named the Proud Boys, a far-right group, Mr. Trump did not do so and even suggested they be at the ready.
“Proud Boys? Stand back and stand by,” the president said, before pivoting to say, “Somebody’s got to do something about antifa and the left.”
Mr. Trump also intensified his baseless claims of widespread electoral fraud from the debate stage. He again invoked the prospect of a “fraudulent election” and disregarded contrary evidence about mail-in voting offered by both Mr. Wallace and Mr. Biden. And Mr. Trump encouraged his voters to “go into the poll and watch very carefully” for any signs of misconduct — an encouragement that could cause disruption on Election Day.
Mr. Trump’s volcanic performance appeared to be the gambit of a president seeking to tarnish his opponent by any means available, unbounded by norms of accuracy and decorum and unguided by a calculated sense of how to sway the electorate or assuage voters’ reservations about his leadership.
In an election marked by sharply defined and stubbornly stable opinions about both candidates, the president’s conduct was the equivalent of pulling the pin on a hand grenade and hoping that the ensuing explosion would harm the other candidate more.
But Mr. Trump made no effort to address his most obvious political vulnerabilities, from his mismanagement of the pandemic to his refusal to condemn right-wing extremism, and it was not clear that he did anything over the course of the evening to appeal to voters who have disliked him, including those who reluctantly supported him four years ago.
Mr. Biden at times sought to ignore Mr. Trump by looking into the camera and speaking directly to the voters. Ruth Fremson/The New York Times
The president did not take aim only at Mr. Biden; he also undercut his own advisers. After Mr. Biden criticized him for his handling of the coronavirus — “he’s a fool on this,” the former vice president said — Mr. Trump mocked his opponent for wearing “the biggest mask I’ve ever seen” and then belittled Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert.
“He said very strongly ‘masks are not good,’ then he said he changed his mind,” Mr. Trump said of Dr. Fauci. The president later said his own F.B.I. director, Christopher Wray, was “wrong” after Mr. Biden noted that Mr. Wray had said the radical left group antifa is more of an idea than an organization.
The debate, at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, quickly descended into name-calling and hectoring in the first 15 minutes, derisive attacks that were extraordinary even by the standards of Mr. Trump’s unruly presidency.
When Mr. Biden attempted to discuss voters who had lost loved ones to the coronavirus, Mr. Trump interjected. “You would’ve lost far more people,” he declared.
The former vice president alternated between smiling and shaking his head in bemusement and firing off attacks of his own as Mr. Trump kept interrupting.
In an exceptionally charged moment, Mr. Trump spoke dismissively about Mr. Biden’s deceased son, Beau, who died from brain cancer in 2015, rejecting an opportunity to show a modicum of personal grace toward his political opponent. Mr. Biden alluded to Beau Biden’s military service as he rebuked the president for having reportedly referred to America’s fallen soldiers as “losers.”
Mr. Trump answered with a rhetoric roll of the eyes, and began attacking Mr. Biden’s other son: “I don’t know Beau; I know Hunter,” he said, proceeding to ridicule Hunter Biden for his business dealings and struggles with drug addiction.
Amid Mr. Trump’s onslaught, Mr. Biden repeatedly offered blanket denials that there was anything inappropriate in Hunter Biden’s overseas work, and said he was “proud of my son” for confronting addiction.
Chris Wallace of Fox News, the debate’s moderator, repeatedly urged the president to let Mr. Biden speak. Ruth Fremson/The New York Times
One of the few phases of the debate that might have been taken by an open-minded viewer as an extended and articulate exchange of views came on the subject of the coronavirus pandemic. Mr. Trump voiced impatience with a range of public-health restrictions and Mr. Biden criticized the president for being dismissive of measures like mask wearing and social distancing.
“If we just wore masks between now — and social distanced — between now and January, we would probably save up to 100,000 lives,” said Mr. Biden, who also alluded to the disclosure in the journalist Bob Woodward’s recent book that the president had intentionally misled the American people last winter about the severity of the virus.
Mr. Trump, reiterating his demands that the country return to normal, called on Democratic governors to “open these states up” quickly.
But even on a matter as grave as the pandemic, Mr. Trump indulged freely in personal mockery. When Mr. Biden called him “totally irresponsible” for holding mass rallies without health protections in place, Mr. Trump responded by mocking Mr. Biden’s more constrained events, suggesting the former vice president would hold large events, too, “if you could get the crowds.” The president, at another point, falsely claimed Mr. Biden had finished at the bottom of his college class. “There’s nothing smart about you,” Mr. Trump said to his opponent.
Mr. Biden at times mocked Mr. Trump, recalling at one point the president’s suggestion that people inject disinfectant into their bodies to combat the virus, a gaffe that for a time ended Mr. Trump’s daily briefings. “That was said sarcastically,” Mr. Trump claimed, though his remarks appeared to be in earnest at the time.
For all his evident frustration with Mr. Trump for not abiding by the rules, Mr. Wallace made no attempt to correct the president as he unspooled a series of falsehoods. Mr. Trump, for example, insisted that Mr. Biden had once called criminals “superpredators.” But it was Hillary Clinton who said it, in 1996. And he did not correct Mr. Trump when he said Ms. Conway did not describe riots as helpful to Mr. Trump’s campaign.
In addition to lobbing false allegations, Mr. Trump also was unable, or unwilling, to discuss policy issues in a detailed manner. Pressed on whether he believed in climate change, the president said, “I think to an extent yes,” before quickly adding: “We’re planting a billion trees.”
Mr. Trump, trailing in the polls and urgently hoping to revive his campaign, was plainly attempting to be the aggressor. Doug Mills/The New York Times
Overshadowed though it might have been, the policy content of the debate’s opening phase mirrored the stark contrasts already on display in the race. On the Supreme Court, the two men split over whether it was appropriate for Mr. Trump to name a new justice to the court in the final months of his term, with the president offering a defiant rationale for doing so: “We won the election,” he said, “and we have the right to do it.”
Perhaps more surprisingly, Mr. Trump dismissed Mr. Biden’s warning that Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision guaranteeing women’s right to abortion access, was “on the ballot.”
The president projected disbelief, though the decision would plainly be vulnerable to being overturned by a conservative court. “There’s nothing happening there,” Mr. Trump insisted.
Mr. Trump had no defense for Mr. Biden’s warning that if the Supreme Court struck down the Affordable Care Act it could imperil women and people with pre-existing conditions, nor did he offer a substantive response to Mr. Wallace’s question prompting him to articulate a specific vision for health care policy.
The president argued that he had already done so, though he has not, and said that his success in repealing the Obama-era law’s individual mandate was a “big thing” on its own. Instead of finally filling in the blanks of his health care agenda, Mr. Trump sought to go on the attack against Mr. Biden, tying him to the “socialist” aspirations of the left wing of the Democratic Party.
Mr. Biden, who campaigned against socialized medicine in the Democratic primary, deflected the attack — “I am the Democratic Party right now,” he said — and sought to keep the focus on Mr. Trump’s lack of health care policies besides gutting the A.C.A.
“He doesn’t have a plan,” Mr. Biden said. “The fact is, this man doesn’t know what he’s talking about.”
For Mr. Trump, this first debate appeared to be his best chance to change the trajectory of a presidential race that has so far resisted all manner of Trumpian efforts to shake it up. The president has cycled through an array of attacks against his Democratic challenger in recent months, criticizing or outright smearing Mr. Biden’s governing record, personal ethics, economic policies, family finances, and mental and physical health — often relying on misinformation and falsehoods.
Over the last month, Republicans have made an especially concerted push to brand Mr. Biden as overly sympathetic to racial-justice protests that have turned unruly and insufficiently committed to maintaining public order.
Yet that argument has not budged the race an inch in Mr. Trump’s direction, or changed the minds of a majority of voters who take a negative view of his personal character and his leadership during the pandemic. From the outset of the race, Mr. Trump has prioritized his largely rural and conservative base ahead of all other constituencies, and he has done little to reach out to Americans who do not already support him.
Rather, in a year of tumult, there has been one constant: Mr. Biden has enjoyed a steady lead in the polls since he effectively claimed the nomination in April.
Propelled by women, voters of color and whites with college degrees, and faring better with Republican-leaning constituencies than Mrs. Clinton did in 2016, the former vice president is better positioned going into the final month of the election than any challenger since 1992.
(CNN)The first general election debate between President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden is (thankfully) over.
It was, in a word, horrendous. Below, the best and worst from the night that was.
US President Donald Trump (L) and Democratic Presidential candidate and former US Vice President Joe Biden exchange arguments during the first presidential debate at Case Western Reserve University and Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland, Ohio, on September 29, 2020. (Photo by Jim WATSON / AFP) (Photo by JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images)
HITS
[This space is being intentionally left blank. This was an absolutely awful debate that did absolutely nothing to educate the public about the two candidates and what they would do if given four years to serve as president of the United States. It was, without question, the single worst debate I have ever covered in my two decades of doing this job. That it happened even as more than 200,000 Americans have died from Covid-19 and projections suggest that number could double by January 1 made the un-seriousness of it all the more striking — and painful. It was, simply put, a deep disservice to democracy.]
MISSES
* Donald Trump: Remember that the President needs these debates to change the dynamic of the race. Because if he doesn’t, he is likely to lose (and lose badly) to Joe Biden. I saw absolutely nothing in a torturous 90 minutes that will change anything. Yes, Trump dominated the debate — but that was because he bullied, interrupted and cajoled both Biden and moderator Chris Wallace at every turn. Sure, that will hearten his strongest supporters. But do you really think they needed a debate performance like this to get excited to vote for him? The interruptions made the debate literally unwatchable. In fact, I found myself repeatedly wondering why anyone who, like me, isn’t paid to watch the debate stayed with it for more than about the first 10 minutes. Trump made a series of outlandish claims — “I brought back football” being my personal favorite — not to mention false statements about his own record and that of Biden. He purposely misunderstood Biden’s reference to his son Beau’s military service so that he could pivot to attack Biden’s other son, Hunter. He refused a direct opportunity to condemn the Proud Boys and other white supremacist groups. (“Stand back and stand by,” Trump told the Proud Boys — whatever the hell that means.) It was dismal. All of it.
* Chris Wallace: Look, no one — and I mean not any person currently alive on Earth — could have effectively handled this debate. Trump is like a rhetorical pile driver — he just talks and talks and talks. He has zero regard for rules. Or other people. Or politeness. Or answering questions. You get the idea. That said, Wallace simply could not pin down Trump (or Biden, for that matter) on almost any specifics about themselves and their policies that we didn’t know going into this debate. (One notable exception: Wallace repeatedly pressed Trump on whether he had paid $750 in federal estate taxes in 2016 and 2017, like The New York Times reported — forcing the President to eventually say he had paid “millions of dollars” in federal income tax. Which, well, hmmm.) Wallace, who I have said before is one of the best interviewers in political journalism, lost control of the debate within the first five minutes — and he never came close to getting it back. The result was a cross-talk shout-fest that ill-served anyone who tried to watch this debacle.
* Debate rules: The two presidential campaigns spend months negotiating the rules to govern the debates — most notably that each candidate would have two minutes of uninterrupted time to answer each question before there was time for a more general conversation. That never happened. Not once. Instead, Trump interjected almost as soon as Biden began to speak. Wallace would then remind Trump that his campaign had agreed to these rules. Trump talked over him. A debate without rules isn’t a debate. Or, better put: A debate in which one of the candidates refuses to follow the rules isn’t a debate.
* Joe Biden: The former vice president started slowly. His answer on why the Supreme Court seat should not be filled before the election was meandering and, frankly, bad. Which is shocking given that Biden HAD to know he would be asked that question. I thought Biden strengthened somewhat through the middle part of the debate — particularly as he made the case that Trump’s mishandling of the coronavirus has cost American lives. But too often he let himself be dragged into Trump’s gutter. And while the Democratic base no doubt rejoiced when he told Trump to shut up and called him a “clown,” it’s hard for me to see how that is in keeping with Biden’s core message of restoring decency and leadership to the White House. As I noted above, this debate likely changes very little in terms of the overall dynamic of the race — which is a good thing for Biden because he is ahead. But Biden too often played into Trump’s hand with the name-calling and the outlandish claims. He forgot the first metaphor of debating with a candidate like Donald Trump: Don’t get down in the mud with the pig, because you both get dirty and the pig likes it.
* Future debates: There are supposed to be two more presidential debates between now and Election Day. Can anyone who watched that disaster possibly believe that we need more of it? And if you are Biden’s team, why would you possibly allow your candidate to face that hellscape twice more — knowing that just by showing up, he is going to be diminished? The Commission on Presidential Debates is a powerful organization. And both campaigns know that these debates draw more eyeballs than either one of them can possibly get on their own. But even with all that taken into consideration, it seems to me that we now have to have a serious conversation about whether having more debates is actually detrimental to voters, and how they are trying to make their minds up about who to vote for.
* Politics lovers: I have been an unapologetic lover of politics for decades. I love the pageantry, the competition, the strategy, the history, the battle of ideas. And at the top of the list of what I enjoy most about politics and campaigns has always been debates. They have long been an effective distillation of the mix of performance and policy required to not just be elected president but also to do the job well. Because I love politics so much, it was deeply disappointing to watch the debacle on my TV screen on Tuesday night. It didn’t make me mad. It made me sad. Because politics is — and has to be — better than this.
