This article says Harris has agreed to debate Trump on CNN on October 23. However Trump has not yet agreed. Will it happen? Methinks no. But Trump is so mercurial he might not know either. There are known knowns, unknown unknowns and Trump.
(NB: Apologies if this was reported in some thread I didn’t read, However, if so, my question is focused.)
To quote the article:
(CNN —) Vice President Kamala Harris on Saturday accepted an invitation from CNN to debate former President Donald Trump on October 23, challenging her rival to another engagement on a public stage in the final weeks of the campaign.
“Vice President Harris is ready for another opportunity to share a stage with Donald Trump,” campaign chair Jen O’Malley Dillon said in a statement. “Donald Trump should have no problem agreeing to this debate.”
Harris tweeted Saturday that she “will gladly accept a second presidential debate” and that she hopes Trump “will join” her on October 23.
Trump on Saturday argued it was “too late” to have another presidential debate because Americans have begun casting their ballots in the 2024 election.
“The problem with another debate is that it’s just too late, voting has already started,” Trump said at a rally in Wilmington, North Carolina.
I think she should give him an ultimatum. Something like: “We’ve been clear and consistent all along that we think the American people deserve to see the candidates on the debate stage. That’s the best way to present the merits of our positions and to show voters a side by side comparison of our values, temperament, character and fitness for office. That’s why right after the last debate I immediately proposed we schedule another. We heard nothing from the former president or his handlers at that time. Now he’s up to is doing what he always does, saying no I won’t, then maybe I will, then no, then yes, than probably not, then only if this or that. Look, that’s the kind of behavior you might expect from a 5 year old. But the thing is, five year olds grow out of it. Trump hasn’t. He’s right back to playing his little games with what’s best for the American people. Well, those games have grown old, tired and boring. So here’s the deal: If Trump’s handlers can’t get him to make a decision and commit to another debate by this time next week [or some other day] - and that includes a date, time, place and conditions - then we’re just gonna get in the car and leave without him. Game over. See you in November.”
Then they should drive a hard bargain behind the scenes, including a non-negotiable that the candidates be fact checked in real time.
I think that’d put Trump in a lose-lose position. Agree to a debate and he capitulates to the ultimatum; keep dithering and he confirms what she laid out.
I suspect he would not agree, and that’d be OK, as he has more to gain by it than Harris.
This has been addressed in the Harris run-up thread, but I agree it warrants specific focus
I suspect he will not agree to another debate. It could only backfire. I suspect Trump has a plan to subvert the election, if needed. For his plan to work, however, it has to be close and come down to one or two states. More than that, whatever plan he has probably won’t work.
It is likely to come down to one or two states, with Harris winning. But, if Trump can create enough chaos, he just might pull it out, ether by causing those couple of states to miss the “safe harbor” date, so their votes are not counted, or by forcing the House to vote on it. A good performance at a debate isn’t going to help if Trump wins outright. It won’t help if it comes down to a few states. But, a poor performance could easily cause a lower Republican turnout than expected, making a Trump loss by more than a few states. Therefore, it can only hurt.
I feel like I have to type this out at least once a day lately, but that is not how contingent elections work. 270 is not a magic number. The threshold to win is the majority of EVs cast. If a state fails to vote (which has not happened since the Civil War and which the courts would almost certainly intervene to protect), the margin of victory goes down. If state X has 10 votes and doesn’t cast them, then Harris needs 265 to win.
The only scenario in which the House decides the election is if Trump and Harris are tied or if a third candidate gets EVs and consequently there is no majority, and neither of those things are going to happen.
Honestly, I wonder if we need to have the 12th Amendment pinned to the top of this forum as often as this misinformation is being repeated.
I am completely aware that the winner would be the candidate who gets a majority of EVs. That’s not the issue.
What happens if, for reasons, the Electoral College is prevented from voting. Say some legal action prevents the votes from being counted (similar to what happened in 2000)? Except, in this instance, imagine the Supreme Court, instead of saying, “Go with the votes you have,” says, “Let the House decide.”
I think Trump agreeing to the last debate was a desperate attempt to recover his sinking poll numbers, and it backfired. No matter how much counterfactual BS his sycophants feed him, he has to know how badly he did and that he’s not going to do any better this time. I also don’t think CNN is a very good place to have a debate considering how poor their moderation was last time.
I’d be very surprised if Trump agrees. If he doesn’t, I’d like to see Harris show up and make the most of it, answering moderators’ questions and turning it into a kind of town hall.
Ironic that he claimed it’s “too late” to hold a debate – at a campaign rally! If it’s too late for debates, why is he still holding rallies?
I think Trump thought he would do well in the first Harris debate; it was not just a question of poll numbers. Every lickspittle told him how well he did against Joe. Some still probably tell him how well he did against Harris. Trump has seen off many much better debaters and many more experienced politicians.
How? “The Electoral College” isn’t a group that meets as a whole. Each state independently appoints its electors and then those electors sign a form stating their votes. You’d have to prevent 51 separate proceedings.
“What happened in 2000” is that the Supreme Court blocked Florida from doing further recounts because continuing to do so would prevent them from casting their electoral votes in time. That’s the exact opposite of your scenario.
There is no constitutional mechanism by which the Supreme Court can unilaterally disfranchise the entire country.
OK.
You win.
(I hope).
To get back to the debate, how in theory could a debate successfully fact-check Trump? He just throws up lies nonstop-it would bog down the whole thing?
Trump’s lies are predictable. He always trots out the same old nonsense; they execute the baby after birth, windmills give whales depression, everyone wanted Roe overturned, tariffs are paid for by Jyna, the late great Hannibal Lecter, electric planes falling out of the sky, billions of migrants invading and killing, they don’t want you to have any water, lather rinse and repeat.
Just have a list on paper with a rebuttal for each.
I think it depends on whether Kamala really wants it or not. We already saw her bring Trump to heel on the previous debate he tried to get out of. And we saw how easily she can provoke him.
But it wouldn’t surprise me if the goal was for him to refuse. Or, at least, it’s an outcome she’d be okay with.
Well, that would let her say, “Trump is a chic-ken, Trump is a chic-ken, nyah, nyah, ny-nah nyah.”
Seriously, Harris has challenged, and Trump has yet to definitively accept or not. If he does, we’ll have a debate. If he doesn’t, Harris gets a town hall. He’s got to be conflicted about whether to accept the challenge and possibly screw up like last time, or whether to decline the challenge and give Harris 90 minutes of free air time.
The only way Trump would agree to another debate would be if it was on Fox with a live audience.
Absolutely not. She has served the ball to him and that’s all she needs to do.
Now if enough people (NOT Kamala) accuse him of declining to debate her again because he is a cowardly, fraidy-cat LOSER, then he might do it.
I heard on some show on NPR this morning that Mitch McConnell asked trump one time why he takes every bit of bait that is tossed to him. Trump said, “I have to defend myself.” If he perceives he is being attacked, he can’t help himself. He has to respond.
CNN invited both candidates. Only one accepted.
I doubt there was a goal beyond beating him again. But it would have looked like she was avoiding something if she said no.
I think he shows up.
He can’t stand the thought of looking weak.
Plus, it will be the Hail Mary his advisors encourage him to do. If he’s going to pull this out, he’ll need to perform a miracle on a national stage.
Of course, he doesn’t have the capacity to prepare, or provide anything but his usual angry rant.
It won’t go well.
But Trump will be there.
Several of us disagree, but who knows. I hope I’m wrong. I’d love to see another debate. I’m sure Trump will be schooled again and again not to get baited, but he just can’t help himself. He’s not very bright and he’s pathologically narcissistic. Baiting a mentally impaired individual is kinda cruel, but in the national interest, it has to be done.
Trump has recently rediscovered that he can dominate the news cycle by saying crazy shit. Hence his recent comments about how it will be the fault of “the Jews” if he loses. Unable to simply ignore him, the news media devotes 24-48 hours of coverage to discussing his most recent remarks confirming that yes indeed, he is still racist/sexist/anti-trans/anti-immigrant/pro-violence/etc.
Bearing that in mind, I think he shows up for the next debate. It’s another opportunity for him to yell about people eating cats or how he hates Taylor Swift or how he’s going to have his opponents thrown in jail or whatever else will cause the media to drop everything they are doing so they can talk about the ridiculous things he said. No media attention is bad attention to Trump so he will go wherever he can dominate media attention the most.