Her position is 9/10 as a requirement and I’ll consider more.
After every debate Clinton and Biden had with Trump, polling showed a Trump loss, with the exception of the last one. Harris probably should try to get as many debates as possible.
Past history is that the first debate gets the highest ratings. My guess is that Harris would be fine with Fox News if ABC came first. Of course, Trump could claim a last minute toothache, or the like, to avoid ABC. Harris’s people will have to game it all out.
I’m pretty optimistic that she could handle Fox News. It is not a matter of principle, but of how to win the election.
I never said, “Kamala Harris already promised to debate on Fox News on September 4 and is breaking her promise if she doesn’t.” Nor would I say that.
Since no one seems to understand what my point is, the problem obviously lies with the way I have been expressing myself and not with other people. But let me quote myself (post 81) on what I said previously:
While I worry that dropping out of this thread may look like capitulation (or fear of losing, or inability to come up with counter-arguments), I’ll just have to take that risk and get a little singed by the burning irony. I’m bored with arguing; no one’s mind will be changed, and I have other things to do. But thanks to all for the spirited discussion; I liked hearing the other points of view.
Yes, that’s more precise. But “more” can’t include a debate on 9/4 that currently exists only in Trump’s mind, because giving him something he wants before getting what she wants is a guarantee that he’ll renege. And it also can’t include a Fox debate on 9/17 if Trump blows off the 9/10 ABC debate.
Agreed. But if Trump even shows up for the one on 9/10 I imagine that’s the last time he’ll be brave enough to tangle with Harris.
Okay let me try. This is how I’m reading your position:
Harris should insist on keeping the ABC 9/10 debate as a precondition of any other talks.
Harris should then push hard for fair rules and better conditions, but ultimately agree to a FOX 9/4 debate even if not all the rules are to her liking.
If Trump attends the 9/4 debate, but ultimately bails on the 9/10 debate, you think the Harris campaign will be able to make political hay out of that and somehow score points.
Is that roughly accurate?
If so, allow me to retort:
She has done this and I agree with you and her on this point.
Harris should not agree to anything unilaterally proposed by Trump. It validates his bullshit tactics and makes her look weak and him strong.
I think you are badly overestimating the impact on Trump’s support if he bails on the ABC debate after getting his way. If anything, he will brag that he worked Kamala and if he can do that, how can she hope to negotiate with tough guys like Putin, Jong Un, and Xi Jinping. Vote Trump.
I think she’s taking exactly the correct approach: “Fulfill your agreement and prove you’re serious and we can talk about other debates because I want to debate you, you simple, simple man.”
Total agreement. Do the original debate. Only the original debate.
If trump didn’t know he had no chance of beating her, he wouldn’t be pressing for the change. He doesn’t get to call the shots that have already been agreed upon.
Not everything Trump says works for him. And before getting to that, he would have railed about how unfair Bret Baier was, and then said something sexist about Martha MacCallum.
What is being missed is that Harris is much better at this stuff than Trump. I’ve said I’m OK with whatever she does, but don’t be surprised if she walks into the lion’s den and comes out fine.
Maybe someone has already suggested it in this thread, but I think Harris should send Trump a list of acceptable debate dates that just happen to coincide with his scheduled court appearances.
Another agreement here. She has agreed to September 10, and she should stick to that. Subsequent debates are negotiable, but nothing prior to that.
One thing that doesn’t seem to have been mentioned is that ABC has set aside that time for a debate, and selected moderators, and will prepare a suitable set, and do whatever else is necessary. If Harris shows up for a debate on that day, and Trump doesn’t, she should use the airtime to her advantage. Perhaps hold a town hall, or simply answer the prepared debate questions, without fear of Trump’s rebuttals.
Well done - and largely correct in terms of characterizing my position. I really meant it about bailing out of this conversation (though obviously, I’ll keep reading) so I’m not going to respond. Your “retorts” (which are perfectly civil, so I’d probably not use that word, which suggests to me a certain amount of emotional escalation) have merit, of course.
I wanted to acknowledge how admirable it is to realize that the problem is how one has been expressing oneself rather than blaming everyone else for not understanding your position.
This, a thousand times this. Agreeing to TFGs unilateral, delusional pronouncements is only going to net the same results that giving into bullying will. Which is essentially what TFG is trying desperately to do, distract from his own cowardice at bailing out of an agreed upon debate by creating a debate date in his own head that he can then use to point to and say “nah, her, she’s the one afraid to debate me”. TFG is just being his narcissistic, man-child self. Hmm, actually, a better comparison is probably giving into a child throwing a temper tantrum than giving into a bully come to think of it. No good is going to come of it.
Trump is already looking cowardly to his own base by refusing to debate Kamala on ABC. It’s just one more reason not to reward Trump for throwing a tantrum.
I hope they don’t work it out. These “debates” are always farces. Either let the candidates question each other or don’t bother. The moderator’s goal is to ask the gotcha question, the candidates’ goal is to ignore the question as much as possible but get in the rehearsed zingers whenever it fits (and often when it doesn’t). Spare us the misery, spare us from focus groups of “undecided” voters saying things like “derrrrp, I don’t know. Kamala sorta makes sense but you know gas prices have gone up and Donnie is a great successful business man so I think he’d be better for the economy…”
