Yeah - I don’t see the upside for Harris. Sure, to us Chump might come across as a stupid boor. But many many folk might say, “Look at him, not letting her get away with whatever.”
Tell me the response to his boorishness which is guaranteed to appeal to more people than it offends - not only in the moment but also edited for future appeals.
Like they say about wrestling a pig. … But we all know how effective “When they go low…” was. And if she responds directly, well, look at that shrewish emasculating bitch.
This, he has consistantly avoided getting into testimony with prosecutors. She will eat him up in ways he can’t fathom. He is going to crawl back under his rock and say he is just following the original rules in order to avoid this.
No, it’s completely different. In court, there is a judge and bailiff to enforce the rules. If a witness continues to be disruptive, they are removed. In a debate, Harris cannot stop him from interrupting if he wants to continue.
Again, it makes Trump look bad to a large population of people. But it also turns off another large population and depresses turnout, which will hurt Harris.
A strategy to deal with Trump’s interruptions would be to say that they show his lack of self control rather than trying to refute whatever he’s interrupting with. So if she’s talking about the border and he keeps jumping in with a bunch of gishgallosh, she could say that it demonstrates how he’s like a child who can’t wait until his mom his done talking. She could say something like “If you can just wait another 60 seconds, you can say whatever you want.” Then if he jumps in again, she could say that he can’t even control himself for 60 seconds and that America needs someone who has the self control to deal with world crises. Don’t try to refute the words he’s saying. Rather, say that the interruptions show he can’t control himself.
While I agree with your strategy, giving him more attention can be a downside too. I suppose there’s no perfect single way to beat him in a debate. A mix of strats might be best.
I suspect that she might just go with trying to trigger him in the debate. It should be easy enough to do. She just needs to be up on all the things that are likely to send him off the rails and use them, as subtly as possible. Show the world that she is a calm, level-headed person and he is simply out of control and unable to rein it in because he cannot even tell that he is out of control.
I don’t even think she needs to try to trigger him, subtly or not. If she sticks to the facts of what the Biden/Harris administration has accomplished since 2020, and the facts about Trump’s failures and legal trouble – laying them out like a good prosecutor lays out evidence – she can expose him as the fraud and con man he is.
If that triggers him into some sort of meltdown, great. But judging by how he’s been acting the last few weeks, she may just beat him down into sullen silence, which would be even more amazing.
Yeah … I’m thinking about the rap battle at the end of 8 Mile where B Rabbit has shredded Papa Doc so badly that Papa Doc just stands there mute for a few seconds before giving up.
I honestly don’t get where the idea comes from that Harris is going to so thoroughly decimate Trump that he’s going to stand there with mouth gapping or lose control of himself and launch into a spittle-flecked tirade. The man has been in many debates, against politicians (including women) who have much more debating experience than him, and he’s done . . . fine. Not great, but good enough to where his debate performance didn’t actively harm him.
As for Harris using her prosecutorial skills to hammer him – well, he also has a fair amount of experience being questioned by lawyers.
Yeah, he’s not like a movie villain who is stunned into silence by a sick burn from the hero. He’ll just continue to vomit up a bunch of nonsense based on whatever keywords he hears from Harris. That’s why I think it’s pointless to respond to anything that he specifically says. He says stuff that doesn’t make sense and he doesn’t care about any explanations. I think it would be better to just respond to the behavior rather than what he’s saying. For instance, “These interruptions are yet another demonstration of how Donald is an unserious man and lacks self control. He can’t even wait 30 seconds for his turn. Now as I was saying about the economy…”. That way Harris doesn’t have to think of logical arguments to rebut all the nonsense that comes out of Trump’s mouth.
Her campaign knows this. They know that he’s willing to literally drone “wrrroooooong” into the mic over and over until it’s his turn.
Literally everybody knows what Trump will do with a hot mic. The question is how it’ll play in the media for the week or so afterwards.
They must have decided that wrestling with the pig is going to energize the base more than getting muddy will hurt her chances. Or maybe they’re thinking that his childish antics won’t play as well as it has previously and will depress GOP turnout somewhat.
Either way, I’m willing to accept that their polling is strong and that their moves are calculated.
Of course he’s not going to do well. He’ll blather and free associate and make wild statements. Because he’s Trump. But there’s world of distance between him “not doing well” and him being stunned into silence or apoplectic rage by some cleverly crafted Harris bon mot. That’s just daydreaming, and it would be a poor strategy to base her debate performance around.
Completely agree. As I said upthread, all she has to do IMO is stick to the facts about the Biden/Harris administration and Trump’s failures (political and personal). Whether that triggers a meltdown, stunned silence or anything in between, she’ll come off looking a lot better than he will.
Silence isn’t something of which DJT is not capable. And while we know he is capable of raging at people when he is upset I expect he has enough self control (yeah, I know) to not lose it on stage.
However, I’m sure he will say she is a “nasty woman” for asking certain questions. I’m not sure how he will react to having it implied he is a loser or if she mentions that he is a convicted felon. And I think it is a given he will imply something very rude about how she got her start in politics (i.e. WIllie Brown).
If pushed far enough he might toss out some racial slur, not the N word but something similar. I’m pretty sure he will get upset enough by having a female POC “talk back” to him that something damaging will slip out of his mouth.