Joe Biden still has time to redeem himself

Saturday’s editorial dealt with the disappointing performance of Joe Biden in the first presidential debate, and suggests it may be a precursor to his defeat in the forthcoming election. It proceeds to discuss how he can withdraw, or be withdrawn, in favour of another candidate.

While I agree that the president is past his prime, Donald Trump was hardly more impressive. His serial lying and evasiveness did not inspire confidence. He has been known to spout incoherent rubbish on far more than one occasion during the course of this election. If age is the problem, he is not much younger than his opponent. Both men displayed their frailties.

There is little doubt that the outcome of a debate as important as this can influence electoral results. There is, however, a distinction between the theatre of debate and the reality of action. The fragility of Biden in this debate is perhaps more than outweighed by the strength of his presidency. Every major economic indicator suggests Biden is formidable. The performance of Trump in office was very weak by comparison.

It is in the interest of the voters to concentrate on these facts, and not just on the poor snapshot image that the debate provided. Biden has produced the goods. It may be a risk to stick with him; it may be a greater risk to dump him.

In any event, there is a long way to go until the next debate. Biden has a second chance. The outcome may be a complete reversal. It has happened before.

David Nelmes

Newport

Andrew Grice writes that the gambling scandal has resulted in a torrent of damaging headlines for the Tories and an untimely reminder of Partygate and Boris Johnson’s lies.

They must regret repealing the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act, which took away a prime minister’s ability to call early general elections by fixing the period between them to five years (except in special circumstances). If it had remained in place, the scandal may never have arisen.

Roger Hinds

Surrey

I read this week’s excellent letter by Rachel Padman, full of common-sense points around violence in women’s jails, and trans women’s absence from such statistics. One of the other areas favoured by those conducting a campaign against trans women is public toilets.

Think of it this way: if a cis woman enters a women’s toilet the chances of her encountering a trans woman are very low. My wife has assured me she has never met one, nor have any of her friends. The chance that said trans woman is a predator is beyond tiny.

However, if a trans woman enters the male facilities, it is possible that she will bump into a cis man, and that he (or they) will be aware that they are trans.

While many men will not care, others will become verbally abusive, and some may even become violent. It is a pointless risk in a pointless culture war against a vulnerable minority group.

Robert Boston

Kent

I don’t think I can take another second of election coverage. Every time I turn on the TV it’s another politician I’ve never heard of breaking a rule I didn’t even know existed, or a dire prediction about such-and-such party based on a marginal seat in some fictional-sounding middle England town.

I know democracy is important and all, but please can we just get it over with already? Thursday can’t come soon enough!

Molly Howe

Canterbury