I personally don’t think she would “blow it” but I think it’s more about letting him have a “win” that would feed into his dumbass machismo and make him look like a “strongman” to his base.
And I never had kids but I think there’s gotta be something to the idea of not giving your toddler the toy they want, no matter how much of a tantrum they throw on the floor of the Target. Otherwise they’ll always think they can get their way by throwing that same tantrum?
You are completely misrepresenting the first (real) debate. They both agreed with it.
Why don’t you want to talk about it as if it was just a nebulous idea no one discussed first?
No; it’s that I strongly suspect that a such a debate, in front of a large live audience, moderated by Fox hosts, will not be unbiased, and will be treated by Trump as essentially a campaign rally, where he is allowed to attack his opponent, interrupt her freely, spin lies, not actually answer the questions posed to him, and not have anything fact-checked on him.
And then Trump blows off the ABC debate because he’s a moral degenerate who doesn’t keep his promises. If he wants to debate somewhere else he needs to show up for the ABC debate first.
Huh? They agreed to the first debate. Trump backed out. He should be called on that.
I do not regard the first debate as “a nebulous idea no one discussed first.”
The debate Trump is proposing doesn’t even seem to be real. But Harris can show she’s so much smarter and more confident than he is that she can do it, if it actually happens.
This is about showing the American people what the candidates are made of, not disciplining a toddler. There is no disciplining Trump, we all know that.
The part where you said she should agree to the debate that Trump made up. He already spelled out the rules. He wrote it like a done deal. He lied.
Any amount of giving in to Trunp’s demand makes her look weak. Like she’ll let him boss her around. Her current stance is perfect. “I’ll be at the debate we already agreed to. We can discuss further debates after that one.”
I don’t get your idea that she should do what the conman is trying to trick her into doing.
Of course it will probably be like that, though the Harris campaign should push for as much fairness as possible.
Back to our low-information voter: they won’t understand why when Harris turns down a debate opportunity, that’s fine, but when Trump turns it down, it’s not. We may be aware of nuances, but if those voters were, they’d have made up their minds already.
Sure, push for it, but also recognize that the likelihood of it being a shitshow, and not being what the Harris campaign had gotten Fox and the Trump campaign to agree to, is really high, and probably not worth the effort.
After lying about the results of the last Presidential election, only ‘’‘stopping’‘’ after it cost them a 3/4 of a billions dollars legal settlement, someone has to justify why Fox should be allowed to participate at this level in the first place.
I think this is a far better argument for turning down a Fox debate than just “Trump is an asshole who doesn’t keep his promises and turns everything into a shitshow.” With proper messaging, it could provide a real reason to dismiss Trump’s proposition.
ETA: Sorry, this post is showing as a response to @kenobi_65. It is intended to address the quoted remarks by crowmanyclouds.
Yeah, Going to a faux “debate” would be silly and foolish.
No. I am afraid that the “rules” will so favor trump, that trump will basically use the “debate” as a chance to pontificate for hours, talking over Harris- the questions will be loaded “Mrs Vice President, who did you allow the border to be open and allow millions of drug dealers and criminals into the USA?” Then the crown will boo over whatever Harris has to say.
It wont be a “debate” at all.
Exactly.
To Fox?!? It is to laugh. They are proven liars.
Would a Harris vs RFK debate work well for the D’s? I’m thinking of a scenario where ABC (or whoever) says something like “We invited the three top candidates, but one didn’t want to participate.”
What? This looks like it was written by someone with no clue whatsever about how low the Magats actually do go.
I didn’t say, and I don’t, that she should agree to any rules Trump wants. In fact, I said her campaign should press hard for fairness.
Yes, yes, I get that Fox is not a fair forum. So advocate for fairness, and let everyone see what happens.
The thing about this is that it is entirely consistent with Trump’s past business behavior. Well before he was a politician, well before Trump Derangement Syndrome was even a concept, well before anybody even knew or cared if he was a Democrat or Republican, he was well known as a guy who would absolutely renege on a contract and dare the other side to do something about it. This is something that Harris or a surrogate should take care to point out, IMHO.
She gets one chance to make a first impression as a presidential candidate. She can do that during the previously agreed to debate time, or she can do that at a debate specifically designed to make Trump look better.
Trump as usual shits his pants instead of acting like an adult. He could reach out to Harris in an effort to “add” a debate before Sept 10, he could have made that his talking point. Instead he’s making big noises to back out of the ABC debate and replace it with a Fox debate. It’s a screaming neon sign “I AM SCARED… I AM SCARED”. Why should she give him what he wants?
I’m afraid there won’t be a debate. That it would be a Trump rally titled as a debate. Those are the conditions that Trump said he’d agree to. Anything else, the deal is off. That’s what people are objecting to.
If Harris insisted on having everything be identical to the ABC debate, except it’s being aired on Fox News instead and held a bit earlier, I’m sure she’d crush it. But that would never happen. Trump isn’t objecting to the venue, he’s objecting to the format and the rules.
It’s like asking if I’m afraid that Usain Bolt wouldn’t be able to beat Donald Trump in a footrace, when Trump’s conditions are that Bolt has one leg anchored to the ground with a 4’ length of steel chain. Of course I would, and that has nothing to do with Bolt’s ability to run.
For sure. And the Harris campaign needs to pound away on that message. Nothing I am saying is inconsistent with that, and I sure as hell am not arguing for replacing the ABC debate with the Fox debate. No - Trump agrees to both or no deal. Then if he drops out of the ABC debate later, play endless footage of him agreeing to do it, then reneging. Then Harris can REALLY taunt him with the “you’re scared, you coward” rhetoric.
We already HAVE footage of him agreeing to do it then reneging.
No, because, as noted upthread, ABC had established specific thresholds for being included in the debate (mostly, averaging at least 15% support in high-quality national polling), and RFJ Jr. is getting far less than that.
Also, giving another crazy, unpredictable wild card a national spotlight is never going to be in the best interest of a serious candidate.
If the Fox debate is after the ABC debate, he doesn’t have to agree, he has to show up. There is PLENTY of time to have a debate after Sept 10. There is no reason to schedule a Fox debate a week prior to the 10th, unless it’s a replacement.
Right now, he is the one reneging, and she shouldn’t give him an inch.