The 90-minute debate is expected to be held in Philadelphia, according to two people with knowledge of the plans. The ABC anchors David Muir and Linsey Davis will serve as moderators. The debate will probably be held without a live audience, but the exact format and ground rules are still being determined, the people said.
Remember my prediction, 5 days ago, when I ranked the likelihood of the possible outcomes:
1. The originally planned version of the debate takes place, with one change: a live audience.
2. The originally planned version of the debate takes place, unchanged.
3. There is no debate.
4. A third version of the debate is hammered out.
5. The Fox News debate, as proposed by Trump, actually happens.
The originally planned debate had George Stephanopoulos has the moderator, so there has been a change, though not the one I predicted. But the live audience is still a possibility. I'm glad Harris is exposing herself to the risks of debate. It is a big risk for her, and it's not for him.
पोस्ट्स
३५ टिप्पण्या:
No Fox debate? What is Kamala afraid of? Real questions?
"It is a big risk for her, and it's not for him."
Well- she's an idiot and he's not, so...
Kamala Harris is not a valid or authentic candidate. She was not elected legally or fairly by her own party's rules and election law itself. The fact that he is choosing to debate her at all lends credibility to the validity of her status, which she does not have.
Bush league move Donald. The democratic party has disqualified themselves and there are no terms to be spoken of. They tried to kill you.
I await the Vance-Walz debate. Pistols at 10 paces.
It is a risk she must take to demonstrate she is truly capable of the bug time.
Kamala must be protected and coddled.
From what I've seen Kamala Harris is only confortable talking about race. Every other subject is a struggle. So, if Trump prepares something on race, to go after her, she's in trouble.
What are the chances that Trump will be sentenced to house arrest before the debate? I know that supposedly it's been postponed until the 18th, but who knows?
Please no race. So boring.
according to two people with knowledge of the plans.
=================
is that one from each campaign or???
he has to debate he is starting to be behind in polls after just a short few weeks.He is campaigning from his basement..Montana? what the heck is he doing in Montana? must need some people to rever him!
George Stephanopolis cannot be involved in any debate, because he's being sued by the candidate. It would be unethical for him to be involved. It would also be unethical for George Stephanopolis to cover the campaign, or provide any commentary at all on the election ... since he is the subject of a defamation lawsuit by one of the candidates. That would be unethical.
This is how you take out "reporters*" you don't like. You sue them for defamation. You don't have to sue them for long. Just long enough.
Lawfare 101
*Deep State embeds
Politics ain't beanbag.
And with $45 million a month from Elon Musk, you can sue them for long enough.
Also, Trump has agreed to THREE debates ... not just the single one on ABC without George Stenographerupagus.
The three debates will occur Sept. 4 on Fox News, Sept. 10 on ABC and Sept. 25 on NBC, according to Trump’s team.
"He has to debate." Uh bro ... Trump is taking on all comers. He's already taken out the President of the United States in a single debate. Kamala Harris (LOL-CA) can't win unless she blows the moderators.
My concern is that this is instrumentalizing the dog.
I am not in favor of the Democratic Party's political philosophy or policies, so it really doesn't matter who they put up for election that person is not going to get my vote. I've never been keen on Trump, but he has gotten my vote twice. Even if Harris held views more in keeping with mine, I could never vote for her. The woman is an idiot.
She will be fed the questions and her handlers will coach her on answers but I think it will be disaster. He needs to get her live on TV. I doubt the other debates will happen.
"I'm glad Harris is exposing herself to the risks of debate. It is a big risk for her, and it's not for him."
But she doesn't have the guts to do Fox. Yet she thinks she should be President.
I'm glad there's not the distraction of the audience (if that's what comes to pass).
Less than a minute of thoughtful web-searching would have shown one good reason why Trump went to Montana: to endorse and rally with Republican Tim Sheehy, who's barely leading Democrat Jon Tester, running for a fourth term in the U.S. Senate. Trump needs as many GOPs in the Senate as possible in January.
Good. I'll take a look at the harris-pence debate in 2020. IRC, it didn't make much of a splash. But maybe im getting it wrong.
What if she performs really terribly...I mean total word-salad bad...will she get the palace coup treatment? Getting a little late in the game, but who knows?
Ok, I have to say this part out loud. Kamala passed the California bar (right?) so she must have more intelligence than her extemporaneous responses to very simple and unsurprising questions would indicate. I believe I saw a clip of her questioning someone in a Senate committee and she appeared competent (but obviously she had those questions already prepared for her by staff). I am using a lot of words to say that the bar of Kamala is low, she just needs to appear competent.
IMHO, Trump would be better off sticking to the issues, because even if Kamala is competent answering questions when it comes to the issues the positions she has are enough to make Trump win the debate without him having to do much.
It would have been risky for her to refuse to debate on ABC, and risky for him to insist on debating next on Fox. They both want to have a debate. Even Biden wanted to have a debate. Even at the height of covid the 2 nominees debated. She did fine in 2020 against Pence. No reason to think she can't handle the guy who conducted today's press conference at MAL.
One more thing, most people never pay enough attention to the debates to remember them very much after they are over. Since everyone knows that Biden's performance was the reason he had to step down there will be extra attention to this one.
My best guess is that Trump is a mostly known quantity to everyone already his support is already baked in but he might have an opportunity to appear acceptable to voters if Kamala comes across as a really kookburger.
Kamala on the other hand has a bunch of support right now, and it appears that her campaign is wisely trying to make the most of it. But at this point she is everything to everybody. Everytime she expresses an actual opinion on a topic (immigration, energy production, trade with China, bringing back dirty masculine jobs to the United States, etc.) she will alienate some voters that right now have overlayed their wishes onto her candidacy.
If Trump were deft, he would try to ideologically capture some of these voters. Imagine if he said:
**You know, folks, I saw Kamala, Kamala Harris, getting heckled in Michigan. Can you believe it? By some pro-Palestine voters. And you know what she did? She shut them down, she doesn’t want to hear from them. But me, I want to hear from them. I really do. I want to hear what they have to say. If we can find those hecklers—great people, really—I’ll meet with them. I’ll sit down, we’ll talk. You know why? Do you know why, Lindsey? Lindsey, that’s a great name. I know a Lindsay, sounds a lot like Lindsey. We didn’t always get along, but now? Now we have a beautiful relationship. Just beautiful. But I think Lindsey, I think the name works better for you, it really does.
So, Lindsey, do you know why I want to meet with those protesters? It’s because if you want a prosperous Palestine, and believe me, I want that, you’ve got to vote for me. I’m the only one who can do it. I want the fighting to stop. I want peace. That’s what the Abraham Accords were all about, folks. They said it couldn’t be done, but I did it. We did it. It was beautiful. And you know, countries are still joining the Abraham Accords, even now. That’s how beautiful it is. Imagine what I can do when I get re-elected, Lindsey, just imagine.
And Israel? Israel needs to get the hostages back, okay? Nothing, and I mean nothing, can stop until those hostages are returned. Hamas? They’re the issue, Lindsey. They’re some bad hombres, really bad. And nothing would make me happier—nothing—than opening a new American Embassy in East Jerusalem for Palestine. I moved the American Embassy for Israel to Jerusalem, they said it couldn’t be done, but I did it. And Israel doesn’t want to fight this war, Lindsey, but until those hostages are back, they have to. They have no choice. But once I’m elected, and those hostages are back, I’m going to make sure there’s peace. I’ll use the Abraham Accords, believe me. It’s going to be beautiful.**
Trump 2024 is not deft. Harris has nothing to fear from Trump 2024.
I just don't see a risk here at all for Harris. They already know how she will do. She is the kind of person who does not waste time going to class, because she will cram for the exam and ace the thing. She is a ringer, and this is all upside for her. And even if she is only just OK, which the moderators assure she will be, the media will be crowing about what a huge win this was for Kamala even before the debate is over.
Again, this is all about plausability.
I believe Mr. Musk pretty quickly denied he had committed to any monthly deposit.
Harris is exposing herself to the risks of debate. It is a big risk for her, and it's not for him.
Althouse is correct because the moderators will not restrict Trump to truth-telling. All of the new Dem election managers have not figured out that everyone loses when Trump tells lies every other sentence and the network moderators permit the lies to go unchallenged. Note that Trump got a full hour of telling lies to reporters today on every news channel but the Harris speech that followed was not televised live at all by any network
Meanwhile, Trump sits on his ass in MAL day and night while Kamala is campaigning at several stops daily. She should have just accepted his first statement that he would not honor the second debate. These presidential debates are pure bullshit - always have been.
Kamala is too scared to take REAL questions to go on Fox. As it is, she will probably be given the debate questions ahead of time, just like Hillary was by Donna Brazile. Progressives cheat. ALWAYS.
I ask this of all sides: when is it a mistake to over estimate the opposition? I don't mean for rhetorical purposes because certainly calling the other guy stupid, lazy, or crazy can be effective at times. What I mean is to actually default to assuming the other side is much smarter than they appear. When is that a mistake?
The AI says it's important to be aware of your opponent's limitations and weaknesses. The policies are where the current establishment is weak with voters, whether they are good for Robert Cook notwithstanding.
The same people whining about Trump's light campaign week thought it was fine and normal when Biden tried to run his basement campaign again.
It's quite obvious you don't have the first clue what a moderator should do at a debate.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा