Sure.
I might add, when a relatively obscure politician is involved in a scandal, and he’s a Republican, real journalists don’t label him “Democrat” on-screen. Fox had done that several times. Real journalists also don’t work for a network that was just found liable for a record-breaking amount for defamation resulting from their blatant lying.
That said, @Loach probably has some valid points. Baier and MacCallum (previously proposed as moderators) are very biased toward the right, but they’re not really hacks like some of the others. Even though MacCallum initially tried to defend the Jan 6 insurrectionists as peaceful patriots, for the most part those two at least try to present a veneer of journalistic integrity. I think a debate on Fox would probably unfold much as @Loach described – easy questions for Trump, tough and even unfair ones for Harris, but nothing completely outrageous.
This, incidentally, is why Trump wasn’t happy with Baier and MacCallum, and believe it or not, he suggested Hannity and Ingraham! 
I’m surprised he didn’t suggest the Three Stooges! Anyway, one way or the other, Fox is off the table. It would be a fiasco, regardless of who moderated.
Usually. The “Haitians eating pets” thing was out of left field, and the moderators were able to nimbly fact-check it.
That allegedly came from the lunatic groupie and hanger-on Laura Loomer. It’s not clear if she fed it to Trump directly or via JD Vance. Given how that played out when used in the debate, Trump probably now has it in for both of them. Of course, that’s nothing new – most of Trump’s associations are short-lived and filled with hateful resentment. That’s just the sort of swell guy he is! 
It was already in circulation the day before and I told my mother he was likely going to bring it up - I just didn’t think he’d go there so quickly.
I deliberately didn’t include that one, because it’s just barely possible that someone might do that by accident. The ones I mentioned, though, couldn’t possibly be accidents.
If that’s not a real Onion headline, it’s pretty good!
I still think she should give him an ultimatum. Otherwise, this is how it will play out: Trump will string everyone along while watching the polls. When he sees he’s slipping further it will get clear to him that he needs to do a debate in hopes of a boost. Then he’ll announce he has decided to do another debate, putting it out there like he’s doing us all a favor, and start dictating terms. The Harris team won’t want to back down so they’ll play ball. They’ll end up settling on something that’s at least partially dictated by trump.
Alternatively, now that the CNN debate is out there, Harris could just say “That’s the debate. Take it or leave it. You have one week to decide.” If he takes it, Harris will have dictated the terms and Trump capitulates; if he leaves it, Harris will have dictated the terms and Trump backs down. Plus, this way the Harris team will know sooner rather than later whether or not they have to factor a possible debate into their strategy for the remaining campaign.
I suspect Trump would not accept the ultimatum, but would still try to dictate terms for another debate, because he’d be the one who needs it. That’s when Harris says “Sorry pal. You had your chance. Snooze you lose”.
And once again, Harris dictates the terms and Trump loses.
And SCOTUS cares what the constitution says? They read into it whatever they want to. Just words.
[hijack]My wife and I just prepared our ballots and we’ll take them to the PO on Wednesday.[/hijack]
Then why didn’t they in 2020? By your logic Trump should be winding up his second term right now and we’d be in the midst of a DeSantis/Newsom race.