If Trump does not show up to the agreed-to debate but Harris does and she makes it into a town hall, would the network owe Trump equal time?
I would think not. They offered him the time and he declined/didn’t show up.
I would think not.
They only have to offer equal time, which he accepted in the form of the debate. It’s on him if he backs out of the equal time he’s already been given AND accepted.
Of course, that’s all subject to any lawsuits he might want to file. But given the proximity to the election, I don’t think that would go very far at all.
Plus, if that were the case, I would think politicians would regularly use it. Skip out of a debate, which plenty of people think are pointless anyways, then pick a politically convenient time to demand your airtime and you’d have 90 minutes all to yourself.
The Equal Time Rule is all but a dead letter at this point due to all the exemptions and exceptions that have been created by Congress and the FCC. Basically, as long as a network will offer campaigns the opportunity to purchase advertising time at equal rates then they’ve met the requirement.
So the on-again off-again debate is now on again, the parties having agreed to to the rules, which will have mic muting and no audience in the studio. This seems to me something of a negative for Trump, who gets energized by an audience and loves talking over his opponent. But we’ll see. He still has lots of time to find an excuse to opt out again.
So when Trump bitches afterwards about how he wasn’t allowed to talk, Harris can say “hey, we offered open mike and YOU turned it down, you big loser”.
I can’t find the relevant clip now, but the MeidasTouch Network’s YouTube page has a post where Byron Daniels is saying that Harris wants the mikes on, because her debate strategy is going to be to not let Trump speak, and so she can constantly interrupt him when he’s trying to talk policy.
So much projection.
So with the announcement from Trump that an agreement has been reached in regards to the mics at the debate, I was curious to see if there was corroboration from Harris’s campaign. When I went looking for news stories I found the following article. Turns out Trump is unilaterally trying to set the debate terms again. Harris’s camp claims no such agreement has been reached.
Both candidates have publicly made clear their willingness to debate with unmuted mics for the duration of the debate to fully allow for substantive exchanges between the candidates - but it appears Donald Trump is letting his handlers overrule him. Sad!" the campaign said in a statement, mocking Trump’s habitual use of “Sad” in his statements over the years.
ETA: Apologies, the board is not generating a preview. Not exactly sure why.
A post was merged into an existing topic: DOJ/Jack Smith Investigation into Trump and Election Interference, January 6th Insurrection (Indicted 08-01-23)
Wrong thread?
Yes, thank you.
That should be in the DOJ/Jack Smith Investigation/Jan 6 thread, but I’m not sure how to do that.
Late: I’ll try flagging it.
Rules have been set for Tuesday’s debate:
Moderated by David Muir and Linsey Davis
No audience in the room
90 minutes of debate time with 2 commercial breaks
Microphones will be muted when the time belongs to other candidate
ABC News releases rules for Sept. 10 debate between Harris and Trump - ABC News (go.com)
My question is to what degree are the moderators allowed to fact check the candidates?
I know the team for one individual will hate this idea but I am very familiar with both Muir and Davis and I find it hard to believe they will simply sit there with no response to the crazy lies DJT will spew.
Maybe they will reframe their questions so Harris can shoot down the GOP bullshit about babies being killed after they are born, as an example etc.
Long story short, it will be interesting.
My guarantee-No matter how well Harris does, not a single prominent Republican will change their mind, secondarily because all Trump negatives will be called positives, but primarily because of fear.
No Republicans need to change their minds—they’re part of a cult anyway. It’s about persuading the undecideds, especially in swing states, and giving Dem voters a reason to proud of their candidate. This was something Biden could nit accomplish in June. She can skate circles around Trump with intelligence any day of the wee, which is an odd thing for him to criticize her about. As long as she doesn’t get flustered, and so far she hasn’t, she will do well next Tuesday.
Given how well it’s worked so far, I’d just ignore his crazy talk and don’t follow him down any rabbit holes. I’m glad she’s had her own experience in the WH so he can’t just dismiss her with “I’ve done it and you haven’t.”
No Republicans are likely to change their mind from him to her. But some may hear her and not see the threat that their bubble portrays, and revert to laziness on Election Day. I suspect that number is bigger than the undecided swing number.
It’s a tricky balance? She is pulling off both having that experience, and being change agent. He has done it before “and we’re not going back.”
Some of them already have.
This however is true:
It’s about what there is of undecideds; and it is very much about turnout of Democrats.
And it is also about turning a few Republicans. There won’t be many who are turnable – but there are some. And in a tight enough vote in swing states, they may matter.
And it’s also about turning some Republicans, if not into voting for Harris, into not actively voting for Trump: staying home, voting libertarian or write in, whatever. In a tight enough vote in swing states, this can matter also.
I guess I should try and watch this one, since I missed out on all the fun for the last one.