I have agreed with FoxNews to debate Kamala Harris on Wednesday, September 4th.
He has agreed. She hasn't agreed, and I don't think she will. Why would she? She's boldly claimed Joe Biden's position as the Democratic Party's candidate, and she can claim status as the successor to the agreement. And she will want to, because the terms are favorable to her, and the terms of the proposed new agreement are worse. It's Fox News, instead of ABC.
The Debate was previously scheduled against Sleepy Joe Biden on ABC, but has been terminated in that Biden will no longer be a participant, and I am in litigation against ABC Network and George Slopadopoulos, thereby creating a conflict of interest.
That "conflict of interest" is not new. It existed when the agreement was with Biden. Trump could have backed out of the agreement with Biden too. It's just a matter of how we the people would view the backing out. Is Trump afraid? Harris is already out there taunting him, saying "If you’ve got something to say, say it to my face." That's a taunt that will work against any criticism he might make of her. She's not going to give up the old agreement. Not only are the terms better for her...
The FoxNews Debate will be held in the Great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, at a site in an area to be determined. The Moderators of the Debate will be Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum, and the Rules will be similar to the Rules of my Debate with Sleepy Joe, who has been treated horribly by his Party – BUT WITH A FULL ARENA AUDIENCE!….
... but not debating at all is better for her. If it's between sticking to the old agreement or having no debate at all, both options are better for her than for Trump:
1. She's already avoiding speaking on substance. She's following something like Biden's old Covid-era "basement strategy." To avoid any debate would be consistent with her overall campaign strategy.
2. Any new information — a misstatement, an undefended policy, an embarrassing locution — will be used against her. To not debate at all would protect her, as would sticking to the original ABC format.
3. Trump is the one who speaks and speaks and speaks and is at home on the debate stage. He can do the ABC debate, and everyone knows it. He can play off Stephanopolous and repurpose any antagonism toward his own ends. So what if he gets things wrong or displays personality defects? Everything is already priced in.
4. Harris has so little time to campaign, and a debate will require special preparation. She'll be holed up with debate experts instead of out in public grandstanding and being seen as a vital, attractive, high-spirited, celebrity-supported candidate. Trump, by contrast, doesn't need any preparation at all. He debates intuitively, using whatever material comes to mind. She has less time to begin with and the enterprise will consume far more of her time.
5. Harris can't know how she will come off in the debate. The pressure on her — and not on Trump — will be insane. Maybe the standard will be low for her — just be solid and don't let Trump get to you — but the standard was lower for Joe Biden and he still fell beneath it — drastically beneath it. Who needs this pressure? Trump has offered her an out by withdrawing from the easier debate. Why would she accept the harder debate?
I think Trump already knows this and his "truth" is just a first offer, a step in the process. I suspect he's angling to get one concession — not Fox News (why would she give him that?), but the live audience. (I'm not picturing a "full arena," but a typical debate-show auditorium.) In the end, Trump has too much to gain — including the sheer fun of the fight — to walk away from the originally scheduled debate, and he knows it.
Maybe Harris ought to offer the compromise: Stick to the original agreement with that one change, the live audience. She ought to display the nerve to debate in front of a live audience, and she ought to believe that real people in the room will elevate her performance. I think a live audience might have helped Joe — kept him awake, sharpened his understanding that he was, in fact, in the arena.
So here's how I rank 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.
पोस्ट्स
७० टिप्पण्या:
Harris has been taunting Trump for a debate. She’s put herself in the position to acquiesce I believe, even though she specified the original debate plan. That “say it to my face” phrase is a challenge that overrides “but I get to choose where and when”.
Trump, by contrast, doesn't need any preparation at all. He debates intuitively, using whatever material comes to mind.
What a pleasant way of saying Trump does not care if what he says is true or not.
Was hoping for a poll for your 5 options summarized at the end.
Excellent analysis. Harris can win just by being a "Generic Democrat", a blank slate that all the ignorant Dumbos can project their hopes and beliefs on. She doesn't need to debate or make speeches, because the MSM does the campaigning for her.
I think having little boy Georgie there would be plus for Trump. He could point out he's suing him for lying about Trump, and paint him as a Democrat stooge (which he is). Another moderator would be just as hostile to trump but could obscure it.
Trump should have pushed for multiple debates with audiences.
On July 25th per AP Harris said this:
Vice President Kamala Harris told reporters on Thursday that she’s “ready to debate Donald Trump.”
She accused him of “backpedaling” away from a previous agreement for a debate hosted by ABC News on Sept. 10.
“I think the voters deserve to see the split screen that exists in this race on the debate stage,” she said after landing at Joint Base Andrews following a trip to Indiana and Texas.
I don't think that the basement strategy is viable for Harris. She's the face of the administration now, and the world is going to shit. Hiding means allowing Trump to set the narrative that the Harris-Biden admin is incompetent, and that she knew about Joe's decline long before now and helped to hide it.
CNN is almost neutral to Trump compared to foul ABC, home of The View.
Biden's challenge was mano-a-mano before either man was officially nominated. Harris has no claim on the agreement.
Neither Trump nor Harris really has much reason to agree to any debate at this point. Harris obviously is going to try to pull off a modified Rose Garden/Biden Basement campaign. Trump is keeping the race a toss-up and has no reason to shake it up.
The first agreement to debate Biden on ABC was personal to Biden. Not assignable to the successor.
She wants him to say things to her face. So be it.
He did not make any agreement with her. She has to negotiate from scratch. If she was not an imbecile who used sex to gain power, she'd know that.
Harris will hold out for the studio audience from The View.
A debate is fine but the American People deserve nothing less than a candidate Pentathlon.
One of the events could be cooking dinner.
This election is so phony and thoroughly rigged that I’ve stopped taking it seriously.
Not only is the election rigged, but the DNC/Intel axis almost succeeded in assassinating their opponent.
Why keep arguing the details over this obviously bullshit, fraudulent election?
I enjoy the analysis. On option 3, does Harris want to be known as the Presidential Candidate that never won a Primary and never did a debate*. *She did one before the 2020 Primary that didn’t go well for her. Of course, Trump wants her on that stage.
Freder Frederson said...
What a pleasant way of saying Trump does not care if what he says is true or not.
You don’t, so why should he? Actually, he’s generally in pretty good command of the facts, which is a marked contrast with Kamala “word salad” Harris and brain damaged Joe before her. Not to mention you.
Trump isn't going to want to say much about his beef with Stephanopoulos. It's a defamation suit where S used the word "rape" in describing the jury verdict in the E. Jean Carroll case. Not at all a good idea to get America back up to speed on that controversy.
Plus a politician suing a journalist for saying something the wrong way... that rubs a lot of us free-speech fans the wrong way.
Wrong idiom — rubs the wrong way — but I'll leave it because it's not funny.
Freder Frederson said...
Trump, by contrast, doesn't need any preparation at all. He debates intuitively, using whatever material comes to mind.
What a pleasant way of saying Trump does not care if what he says is true or not.
Yeah, 'cuz candidate spin and focus-grouped answers have such high truth value.
And I wouldn't put a lot of stock in Harris's ability ..
“This is just an extraordinary testament to the importance of having a president who understands the power of diplomacy and understands the strength that rests in understanding the significance of diplomacy.”
I agree with Begley and others, Trump just repeats “Biden pulled out not me” and “she issued the challenge these are my terms take it or leave it.” Surrogates can only parry that so long before some journalist not sufficiently beholden to the DNC asks her directly why she won’t accept.
If Harris wants to be mocked, ridiculed and insulted to her face I'm pretty sure Trump will agree.
"I don't think that the basement strategy is viable for Harris."
Compared to what? What level performance from her are you imagining? You don't know how bad she would be if she went out and did press conferences and town halls and debates.
Is Kamala afraid? That's weird and bewildering.
I'm sick of debates run by the propaganda media. Why bother having one, when the left wing always get to moderate?
Compared to what? What level performance from her are you imagining? You don't know how bad she would be if she went out and did press conferences and town halls and debates.
No, I'm aware of how bad she would be. It's why she was never a good candidate. The problem is that the basement strategy doesn't work when you're president. It worked for Biden because Trump was the president, so Biden simply had to present himself as the vague promise of something better, while letting the media whip up hysteria over every Trump decision. Harris can't do that, because she is part of this administration. She has to come out and explicitly make the case for how she would be different than Biden, or else she'll let Trump set the narrative.
No criticism for unPresidential playground taunts from the appointed queen? No can’t be President because mean tweets? You deserve the crap sandwich.,,
I imagine Kamala to reveal herself as the airhead that she is.
@Mr Wibble ..
You have to factor in that Biden is still officially the pResident which makes Harris Schrodinger's Chief Executive. She simultaneously is and isn't as need demands. It could work.
Shouting Thomas said...
Not only is the election rigged, but the DNC/Intel axis almost succeeded in assassinating their opponent.
Why keep arguing the details over this obviously bullshit, fraudulent election?
8/3/24, 7:26 AM
Look where the carriers are being deployed. The oligarchs expect war in the Middle East, and possibly Taiwan. They aren't going to win those wars, but it would be obviously impossible if they're dealing with massive civil unrest from a second stolen election. Especially for a character as idiotic as Kamala Harris.
At least some of the oligarchs are tempted to follow the Musk/ Zuckerberg route of simply accepting a second Trump term, especially after October 7th. The problem is, the oligarchs who are Epstein clients (correctly) fear being imprisoned. Not to mention all the lawfare types who know President Trump isn't going to just play defense this time.
What a pleasant way of saying Trump does not care if what he says is true or not.
The fact is, no politician today limits him or herself to the truth. It matters to them whether something is true or not, but not because it's true or not. Politicians say things that will have an emotional impact and/or will be persuasive. If it's true, all the better.
Generally speaking, those listening to politicians do not demand they speak only truth. People seem to prefer the emotional arousal to good information...you and I being notable exceptions of course.
She isn’t known for listening to or accepting advice from strategists who might warn her away from Trump’s challenge. She might hastily agree to it if asked often enough. And as we saw in the prisoner press conference she is horrible at ad-libbing. And preparation.
Wibble said...She's the face of the administration now, and the world is going to shit.
The first time I read that I interpreted "shit" as a verb.
Actually, Kamala Harris should take the Fox News debate. Aside from it being moderated by squishes like Bret Baier, the debate would make her look "tough" in a way Joe Biden could never manage.
But the real reason she should accept a reasonable offer is that President Trump could otherwise implement an Independent Debate. Trump vs RFK Jr., moderated by Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson. Sub in Glenn Greenwald if you feel like it. With backing from Twitter and Spotify, it would be nearly impossible for Kamala to get yet another corporat debate after that.
Of all the shitty takes that get double-posted…
I love how Donald Trump does not even get a mild "thank you" from the Democratic Party for exposing that Joe isn't able to do the job now, let alone for four more years. If not for the debate, MSNBC and the rest of the Biden bozos would still be calling him The Best Biden.
“Compared to what? What level performance from her are you imagining? You don't know how bad she would be if she went out and did press conferences and town halls and debates”.
That’s funny Ms. Althouse, very dry! Crimies.
The "conflict of interest" didn't matter before because Joe couldn't hold his own in any venue. Kamala might benefit from a friendly crowd.
An agreement requires an offer first.
If I was Harris: “No -- you're not going to avoid me like you avoided the draft. We stick to the original plan."
Harris loses any "Say it to my face" cred since she ducked the NABJ conference. If there was ever a more friendly venue for her to say her bit, that was it. Trump went, dealt with extremely hostile questioning and I think may have scored a point or two with the audience. He at least gets credit for showing up.
Trump had a better angle on this debate shit- agree to the ABC debate but without moderator input. All the other terms the same- no audience with the candidates asking each other questions. If Harris isn't afraid to debate, then how could she turn down such an offer? The FoxNews challenge is easier to turn down without looking like a coward.
Althouse is correct- the party here that is afraid of a debate is Harris and the Democrats- it is why they want the most friendly moderators possible who they know will give them a heads-up on what questions are coming. Incidentally, while I have no knowledge of what political leanings FoxNews' McCallum has, Bret Baier is pretty anti-Trump and always has been. The difference between the FoxNews debate vs one hosted by ABC is this- it is much more unlikely that Harris would get a heads up on the questions to be asked- she would run the risk of having to answer questions she wasn't prepped for.
If there's a live audience, how do they choose audience members?
As for the old agreement- I think Trump is in the right- that agreement was with Joe Biden personally and died the moment Biden dropped out of the race and is now open to new negotiations.
However, overall, I expect Althouse is also correct that the original debate on ABC will go forward- in fact, if I were Trump knowing it was going to go forward, I would challenge Harris to do it next week.
"Trump had a better angle on this debate shit- agree to the ABC debate but without moderator input."
Because Trump knows his word-salad answers will sound like a Chef salad — jumbled and full of baloney. So he wants a MAGA cheering section to make them sound like a Caesar salad — clean and crisp.
"As for the old agreement- I think Trump is in the right- that agreement was with Joe Biden personally and died the moment Biden dropped out of the race and is now open to new negotiations."
Trump's campaign died when Biden dropped out......
Blogger Bob Boyd said...
The first time I read that I interpreted "shit" as a verb.
+100
Leftwing media should be free to defame and lie about Trump.
It's free speech, man.
"What's your name in real life? Never posted your views under that, ever, eh? Courage, as Dan Rather used to preach..."
My name in real life is exactly the one I use here and everywhere else, Mary, Mary, Quite Contrary.
“Plus a politician suing a journalist”
If that’s what you think Stephanopoulos is, well…
Stephanopoulos is nothing more than a cheerleader for Democrats. Nothing more, nothing less.
The bullshit is Rich and it’s deep.
Open debate, let the candidates do the talking, and demos-cracy judge their fitness to purpose.
It’s troubling to see Althouse still lives in the bubble that thinks Fox News is Trump territory. It is insidiously anti-Trump and has been for a long time. Bret Baier is a Bush Republican if he still is one at all. Anyone who cites Fox as Trump country is seriously out of the loop. And yes, I know, Trump pushed for Fox but not because he thinks they’ll be fair to him. He knows they’ve been deceiving their Boomer audience for years about Trump. He knows they’ll have to pretend to be fair towards him.
TLDR; Fox hates Trump and any pundit should know this.
I entirely agree. I posted my reasoning on the other debate post this morning: either the original agreement was between Trump and Biden and is therefore now void, or the incumbent side got to choose one venue and format so the challenger side ought to get to choose the second.
M Jordan said...
And yes, I know, Trump pushed for Fox but not because he thinks they’ll be fair to him. He knows they’ve been deceiving their Boomer audience for years about Trump. He knows they’ll have to pretend to be fair towards him.
8/3/24, 9:12 AM
Exactly. It's actually a very good deal for Kamala, but she can't take it: Fox News is such poison to the left that she'd look weak to the left merely for accepting it. Trump would be much better off to accept a debate with RFK Jr. outside the corporat sphere, and Kamala would look much worse than Biden for ducking it.
Tag team political debating. Will the JournoLists be called for empathetic/sympathetic/emotional support?
Maybe this is Trump's way of asking for two debates. The fair counteroffer from Kamala would be okay, one on your terms, one on my terms.....Any televised debate will be tuned into by most of the electorate. I don't know if it would have Superbowl ratings, but it would be a big deal. We would see the candidates as they are and not the shadows that the media throws upon the walls.....I don't think there's anyone on earth who doesn't have a hardened opinion on Trump. But it's less so with Kamala. She has had nowhere near the exposure that Trump has had. Opinions of her aren't quite as hardened. Perhaps during the debate, she'll impress us all with her ready wit and charm, or perhaps she'll say something utterly fatuous and then cackle unnervingly....At any rate, it would be an opportunity for us to see both candidates side by side in a high pressure environment. And two debates are better than one.
Great post, Ann, and you might be correct in your rankings in terms of what will transpire. But still, I would invert those rankings and put "5. The Fox News debate, as proposed by Trump, actually happens" as my preferred outcome--and I say this as someone who would rather see Harris win than Trump. Here is why:
If I were one of Harris's advisors--well, first of all I would need to have a steady supply of Valium or something to handle being a Dem operative, for heaven's sake--but If I were, I would strongly encourage the VP to give that man what he wants and agree to stand in front of him at a Fox-hosted debate with a live audience. Give him every concession. My reasons are the following:
1)she’s really not making herself as available to answer questions or deal with adversity, of any kind, and while I know the convention hasn’t even happened yet, perception matters and she needs to get out there and show she can do these basic things that Biden cannot do. It’s good she’s swinging around the swing states and campaigning, but there are other things to this, and sparring matters. The Right is correct to point out that she is not dealing with adverse rhetorical situations, and she can shut them up easily by going into the "lion's den" on Fox (I know that's an exaggerated metaphor, thus the scare quotes, but also again, perception matters, and "lion's den" will be part of that perception too.
2)In truth I do not believe the FNC hosts or the audience will "bully" Harris or anything like that. What a terrible look that would be for Trump with non-committed voters if that were to happen! Sure, there will be question framing that is unfriendly to her, but so what? See point 1. You're supposed to face those things if you want to be President. Say what you want about Trump, but he certainly is willing to face such framing, and pretty regularly too.
3) Sanders and Buttigieg have (rightly!) been praised for their willingness to regularly go on Fox. Harris would get some of that same (even if grudging) respect from some Republicans and pretty open respect from non conservatives, just for doing it. Going on there will at least temporarily shut up the whining by Republicans about “unfair moderators!”
4)in politics when you get everything you said you wanted, and then it’s your turn to pony up the results you said would happen if you got all of that? That puts all the pressure fully on Trump, if she stands across from him on a FNC-hosted stage.
5)Harris remains the underdog, and underdogs must be seen as fighters and sometimes they do indeed have to concede terms just to be able to get in there and mix it up.
6)I continue to believe Trump, as always and forevermore, is his own worst enemy politically (god, imagine being one of HIS advisors and how many valium you'd need), and it is stupid of Trump to agree to debate her under any conditions whatsoever. He has far more to lose than he has to gain from debating Harris, whether it’s on Fox or anywhere else. Yet all this posting and daring her to face him on .... checks notes . . . simply a different corporate network, one that likes Republicans? He cannot back out if she surprises him and says "sure, let's go."
Althouse said... Trump, by contrast, doesn't need any preparation at all. He debates intuitively, using whatever material comes to mind.
Freder Frederson said...
What a pleasant way of saying Trump does not care if what he says is true or not.
I dunno know about Trump, but Kamala disingenuously did exactly that about her having called Joe Biden a racist by mindlessly repeating, "It was a debate, it was a debate."
Coup.
Trump and Biden will debate on September 10 as agreed.
No idea why this comes to mind but in the 1960 debate nixon discombobulated JFK by asking what he would do about quemoy and matsu.
If president does debate Harris, he should just drop that in somewhere, anywhere.
"I wonder what my opponent plans to do about quemoy and matsu?"
She has probably never heard of either but would have to pretend she knew.
The correct answer, BTW, is "nothing" which is what pdjt should answer.
An alternative is to say at a rally "I'm looking forward to the debate. I'd like to ask her position on quemoy and matsu"
Make her waste time preparing a response. Then dont say anything about.
MDFA! make debates fun again
John Henry
Maybe the Commission on Presidential Debates wasn't such a terrible idea after all. True, they were wedded to the existing media system, but not more so than the Democrats. They did allow FNC to host debates, and they cut through all the endless, boastful competitive junk measuring of the two parties.
" The first time I read that I interpreted "shit" as a verb" Ha, too true. But it could easily be both noun and verb, each equally accurate.
Maybe the (debate) standard will be low for her
Bull. All Harris has to do is show up, and she will be declared the bestest candidate EVAR, and anyone who disagrees is the S-word and the R-word.
The best debate would be to separate the two, turn on one mic for 15 min, then turn it off and turn on the other. Then hafe a rebuttal, don’t allow the moderator to ask any questions.
I don't often give the Democrats credit for smarts, but dumping Joe for Kamala at this stage of the game was a BRILLIANT move. The evidence that Biden was incompetent and his policies were ineffectual had become overwhelming, so the Democrats dumped Joe and put in someone with NO RECORD AT ALL. Oh sure, if you pay attention, Kamala had a record, but the public is never going to hear about it (and she can deny what you hear).
Four years ago Biden ran from his basement as "Not Trump" and won, and that's the Democrats' strategy this year.
.
Trump, by contrast, doesn't need any preparation at all. He debates intuitively, using whatever material comes to mind.
What a pleasant way of saying Trump does not care if what he says is true or not.
Freder do you really believe that truth telling is the essence of debate? As Judge Hoffman said to Abby Hoffman, in the Chicago 7 trial; "Please stick to the facts."
"But your honor," Abby replied, "what are the facts without their nunaces. "
Of course the Queen of veracity can describe how much tougher on the border she will be than DJT.
I like Bonchie’s idea at RedState. Continue urging Kamala to show up at the Fox debate, hammer her for being chicken when she doesn’t show, talk about it for a week and then when the ABC debate comes up, go to it and debate a presumably unprepared Harris.
"Excellent analysis. Harris can win just by being a "Generic Democrat", a blank slate"
Hope and and (spare) Change
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा