Abbreviated Pundit Roundup: So there was a debate last night ...

Abbreviated Pundit Roundup is a long-running series published every morning that collects essential political discussion and analysis around the internet.

This was not a great debate for Joe Biden (in fact, not good at all), but also not a great debate (in fact, not good at all) for Donald Trump. Those who wanted different candidates will be reassured that their instincts were correct. 

Biden seemed old and tired, but improved in the latter part of the debate. Trump was insane throughout. That’s the choice for November.

As for the ultimate effect? See John Sides/Good Authority:

Why it’s gotten harder to predict the outcome of the 2024 debates

A new schedule means that the old research and history may not apply.

But this year’s schedule creates the potential for something different.

For one, the first debate will take place quite early. There should be more undecided voters than there will be in October. And we know that Joe Biden has work to do rallying Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters. If Biden “wins” the debate – I use scare quotes because these judgments are always subjective – it could boost his standing within the party even before the Democratic convention.

Then there is the Republican convention from July 15-18 and the Democratic convention from August 19-22. This will allow us to observe the potential impact of each. In some years, like 2020, the party conventions are so close together that you can barely see any impact of the first before the second one kicks in. But note also that party conventions have had smaller effects in recent elections.

The second debate on Sept. 10 will also take place earlier than the first debate typically has. So, once again, there could be potential for the polls to move. Moreover, convention bumps sometimes decay and either candidate could benefit from a highly publicized victory in the September debate.

But then…there will be almost 2 months until Election Day. That’s plenty of time for any impact of the final debate to disappear, or another late-breaking event to override the debate’s impact.

Marc Jacob/Stop The Presses:

Why won’t media sound the alarm that Trump is unhinged?

If you normalize Trump, you’re helping your crazy uncle get the nuclear codes

Convicted felon Donald Trump has said so many crazy things over the years that some news organizations have decided it’s not news anymore. So when the would-be dictator who’s running for president makes outrageous comments, the mainstream media often yawns.

And that’s really crazy.

Because Trump is clearly getting worse. The lies and hate speech are more outrageous, the gaffes more embarrassing, and the rhetorical skills more eroded, with Trump slipping into gibberish.

Major media are exposing the Trump campaign’s dishonest campaign tactics – from video fakery to email fundraising lies – but they’re not focusing enough on his basic lack of mental fitness. They’re still normalizing him.

Why is that? Here are some theories ...

In other news (with debate opinion added in tweets; look for long-form in Saturday’s APR):

Brian Stelter/The Atlantic:

THE REAL STORY OF THE CRISIS AT THE WASHINGTON POST

How the world’s greatest businessman drove his newspaper into a ditch

The mood in the newsroom these past few weeks has been described to me as aggrieved, embarrassed, and exhausted. “It all feels like one giant house of cards,” a journalist told me. After the steady exodus of talented staffers over the past couple of years, there are widespread concerns that more top reporters will soon flee. (“Either Will goes, or a hell of a lot of us go,” one well-regarded reporter told me.)

Underneath the drama, there is a rising fear among Post staffers that they had not previously understood the root of the problem at their paper, one of the country’s most essential publications. The continuing tumult has drawn attention to the very top of the Post, to the person responsible for hiring both Ryan and Lewis: Bezos.

Cam Joseph/Bolts magazine:

New Hampshire Republicans Try to Require Proof of Citizenship to Register to Vote

The bill, part of a nationwide wave of conservative proposals fueled by Donald Trump’s false allegations of voter fraud, risks disenfranchising many eligible voters.

Under current New Hampshire law, voters are asked to provide proof of identity and age (usually a driver’s license), proof that they live where they want to vote, and proof of citizenship (either a birth certificate or a passport) in order to be able to register and vote. Less than half of Americans have a passport, and a new study by the Brennan Center found that nine percent of Americans don’t have any proof of citizenship readily available. The current law in New Hampshire allows people to sign a sworn affidavit attesting that they’re telling the truth about their citizenship and residency. Roughly 6,000 people used affidavits in the 2016 election cycle.

The attorney general’s office then follows up after the election to verify those claims. Republicans point to the fact that after the 2016 election cycle, the AG’s office was unable to verify whether 230 of those affidavits were true statements. But that doesn’t mean those registrations contained false information—it just means the AG’s office couldn’t run down the paperwork. The office couldn’t provide any examples of them bringing charges against people for lying on their affidavits in years when asked by NHPR.

The bill would make New Hampshire the only state in the country to require people to bring documentation to prove their citizenship in order to be able to register to vote.

Steve Benen/MSNBC:

Even now, GOP scrambles to steer Jan. 6 blame away from Trump

In Republican politics, a new consensus is taking shape: Donald Trump isn't responsible for instigating the Jan. 6 attack that he obviously incited.

To be sure, three-and-a-half years after the insurrectionist riot, Republican rhetoric on the subject is all over the map. Some in the party argue that Jan. 6 was justified because of a ridiculous election conspiracy they’ve concocted. Other GOP voices insist that the assault on the Capitol was some kind of plot hatched by antifa and/or the FBI.

But Republicans such as [Reps. Dan] Meuser and [Michael] Waltz are members of a very different contingent: They expect Americans to believe that Trump wasn’t responsible for the attack that he instigated. The former president, the argument goes, didn’t do what he obviously did.

Sure, the public might’ve seen Trump summon a mob, fill them with lies, and deploy them to Capitol Hill with instructions to “fight like hell.” Nevertheless, that’s not stopping GOP lawmakers such as [Sen. J.D.] Vance, Waltz and Meuser from going along with the gaslighting, effectively telling voters that they shouldn’t believe their lying eyes.

Greg Sargent/The New Republic:

Trump’s Shameless, Corrupt Wooing of Plutocrats Is Suddenly Backfiring

A media narrative has somehow taken hold that CEOs are stampeding toward Trump. The full story isn’t nearly so simple.

Donald Trump is sometimes euphemistically described as “transactional,” when in fact the correct word is “corrupt.” Nowhere is this truer than with his efforts to woo the plutocratic class with veiled threats and something akin to naked solicitations of bribes.

In recent days, Trump has urged Big Oil executives to raise $1 billion for him while dangling specific deregulatory promises he’ll enact if reelected president. He reminded a roomful of top donors that it’s in their interests to cut him large checks because he will keep their taxes low. As The Washington Post delicately reported, Trump “frequently” makes such solicitations “explicit.” Meanwhile, Trump recently raged that top executives who aren’t backing him now “should be FIRED for incompetence,” an apparent warning to get on the Trump train—or else.

But there are signs that these tactics are backfiring. While a media narrative has taken hold that corporate elites are rushing to support Trump—shelving misgivings about his threats of authoritarian rule—the reality is much more complex. His corrupt entreaties appear to be contributing to a sense that a second term would be unsettlingly chaotic and disruptive to the business climate—and this has emerged as a key argument that President Biden’s allies outside the White House are quietly making to business leaders in urging them not to back Trump.

Cliff Schecter’s pre-debate take: