The first debate between US President Donald Trump and his Democratic rival former Vice President Joe Biden was one of the most anticipated events in the political life of the United States in 2020.

Shortly before the debates in the suburbs of Cleveland, Ohio, there was a lot of debate about whether they would take place.

Many liberal experts and politicians, including the speaker of the lower house of Congress Nancy Pelosi, urged Biden not to go on the same stage with Trump.

Like, the president will still lie and throw mud at the candidate from the Democratic Party, so why bother and take part in a discussion where not a single topic will be discussed in essence?

The Republicans, in turn, were confident that the physical and mental state of the former vice president would not allow him to argue on an equal footing with the current owner of the White House, so that the Democrats, under any pretext, would withdraw their candidate's participation at the very last moment.

But the debate did take place.

And this, perhaps, became the main news of the past day.

Moreover, Biden not only went on stage, but also held out well until the end of the discussion.

His speech mainly consisted of homemade preparations, but he used them skillfully enough.

Yes, in any other year, the media would have assessed his behavior as "inanimate" (Joe really resembled a wax doll that the creators forced to speak), but not in 2020, when the Democrats' election tactics were to present their the candidate to the public, since he often behaved inappropriately.

Either he falls asleep on the air, then he forgets what position he is being elected to, then he confuses the state he came to.

So the low expectations from Biden's performance played into his hands.

Trump was what they used to see him.

If there were any homework, it was more likely at the level of memes, which have already been used more than once by both himself and the press sympathetic to him.

He spoke much more vividly than his opponent and did not step back from his conversational manner in the style of a simple American guy, which he earned the love of the working class, the inhabitants of the American hinterland and the middle class, suffocating under the yoke of global corporations.

But was he able to convincingly talk about his advantages and the horrors awaiting America if his opponent wins?

I think no.

But even if he tried hard to do it, it is unlikely that anything would come of it.

In the conditions of the most severe political confrontation in the United States, it is almost impossible to prove anything at all.

Politicians, the media and experts have long forgotten about objectivity.

They constantly manipulate facts, distort the picture of what is happening and continually accuse the other side of lying.

In most cases, it is completely categorical.

This has become the new standard for conducting political discussion.

Spectators, voters are no longer persuaded - they are scared to death and taught to believe not facts or reasonable arguments, but ideologized memes.

How, for example, can we regard Biden's assertion that if it were not for Trump's mediocre leadership, in the United States, not 200 thousand, but 100 thousand people would have died from coronavirus infection?

Or Trump's claim that if Biden were president, a million United States citizens would die?

On what basis were such conclusions drawn?

And which of the hesitant voters, seriously affected by both the pandemic and the quarantine restrictions, can such statements convince?

Of course, the opposing campaign headquarters in the United States have done everything possible in the past to present the opponent in the most unattractive light.

The facts were distorted, and the assessments were not completely objective.

Political controversies were often personalized, and promises were made without any regard for the possibility of their fulfillment.

But since 2016 the situation has changed qualitatively.

So much so that the good old compromising material simply stopped working.

Not so much because no one trusts anyone anymore, but because of the principled internal political confrontation.

So what if the candidate has tarnished his reputation with inappropriate connections or careless statements?

The main thing is that he will not allow the enemy to win.

It used to be that the victory of one or another contender for the highest state post meant minor changes in the social or tax sphere.

In an extreme case - the beginning or end of a war thousands of miles from the American border.

Today, the two candidates represent not even two paths for the development of the United States, but two different and hating America.

The dispute has become too principled for the press, the expertocracy and the voters themselves to be able to afford objectivity, especially a reasonable compromise.

What compromise can be between two completely different realities, different visions of the country?

So the candidates speak in different languages ​​and give reasons that are understandable only to their supporters.

No dialogue.

No hint of convergence or reconciliation.

Perhaps some part of the electorate would be ready to vote for some centrist candidate or for a third force that would end the antagonistic confrontation that threatens to turn into a civil war at any moment, but it is not this peaceful electorate that determines the political agenda today.

It's not even about right-wing and left-wing ultras or street activists, although they escalate the situation day by day.

It's about ordinary Americans.

Some do not want to live in a country where factory workers and farmers, these "people from the past", influence political decisions.

Others don't want to share the country with the urban sissies, these endless art directors and coders who can't see anything beyond the front wheel of their electric scooter.

For some, the United States is a sovereign state with traditions, history and distinct national selfishness.

For others, it is just a territory where offices, banks and think tanks of a global world without borders, citizenship and, of course, without any rudiments of family, religion and traditional morality are located.

It turns out that American democracy cannot resolve such fundamental disputes through "free expression of the will of citizens."

If only because both opposing sides understand this expression of will in different ways.

The heated debate over mail-order voting and methods of collecting votes is, in effect, setting the stage for counting some ballots and sweeping others under the carpet.

Both parties are working to tweak the procedural intricacies of declaring themselves the winner.

Debate moderator and Fox News host Chris Wallace asked both candidates if they would urge their supporters to "stay at home and stay cool" and not declare themselves victorious until all the votes have been counted (and they probably won't less than three to five days).

Biden answered vaguely, but nevertheless said that in case of a negative outcome of the vote for him, "he will agree with what happened."

Trump refused to talk about "consent" at all.

On the contrary, he called on Republican voters to come to polling stations as observers and said that today the Democrats on the ground are doing everything to falsify elections.

At the end of his emotional phrase, he added: "This will not end well!"

It would seem that Biden was more conciliatory and pledged to act legally.

But the fact of the matter is that he is not in control of the situation and his supporters.

Moreover, he is disingenuous.

After all, his headquarters has already hired more than two hundred lawyers to challenge the election results.

But the crowds of protesters and rioters on the streets of American cities are led by completely different people.

Militants antifa and Black Lives Matter will act on command not from Biden's headquarters.

So Trump was at least telling the truth.

Within hours of the end of the event in Ohio, numerous polls were conducted among viewers to find out who, in their opinion, won the debate.

According to most of these polls, Biden prevailed.

In my opinion, this is not entirely correct assessment.

First, Trump is very good at losing the debate on formal grounds, but emerging as the winner (in terms of the rating dynamics) three to five days after it.

2016 clearly showed this.

Secondly, the mobilized Biden pleasantly surprised the voters - and above all his supporters - by the fact that he stood up to the end of the discussion and did not freeze a single stupidity.

This added points to him.

However, he also demonstrated that he does not have his own plan or his own program.

Over the next few days, this circumstance will be "highlighted" in every possible way by the few but very energetic pro-Trump media.

Finally, it hardly makes sense to talk about the winners in the current situation.

But there were at least three losers - the moderator Chris Wallace, who lost control of the discussion from the first seconds, the American electoral system and all those who hoped to stabilize the political situation in the United States and return it to a legitimate framework.

After the first debate, it became finally clear that, in the words of Trump, this will not end well.

The author's point of view may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.