…When Harris became the presumptive nominee, Democrats lept for joy at the prospect of the sharp, younger, former prosecutor taking Trump head-on and kicking his ass on the debate stage. She has excellent verbal skills. She is tough. She could put him in his place.
The problem is, we already know what Trump’s place is. It’s in the gutter and he’s perfectly happy to drag his opponent down in the muck with him. There is nothing to be gained. It’s impossible to be anywhere near him and conduct oneself with dignity.
I think she should debate him. I interviewed her several times before the 2020 Iowa caucuses, and I believe she would do well despite Trump’s boorish behavior, sexism, racism, and lies. She’s a sharp, quick-witted, powerful woman and former prosecutor. What could go wrong? Well, lots, especially if the journalists moderating don’t do their jobs and fact-check.
But more importantly, what do you think? Feel free to share your reasoning in the comments below.
Yes, she should debate Trump unless he insists on some stupid ground rules. I expect him to keep squirming around to dodge a debate. The Harris line “say it to my face” is totally appropriate.
Hate to see this become a game of chicken in which if either one commits NOT to debate the other, then this becomes one more element of public ridicule by the opposing party.
Will he be an a$$? Of course.
Can she handle it? Likely, unless he comes over and physically accosts her. In which case, I hope adequate security is prepared ahead of time.
Will he p!ss and moan following - of course, that is who he is.
Yes, offer to debate. Otherwise, Trump & company will use that avoidance in negative messaging. She must maintain decorum, persistently serve as fact checker (and keep her comments consistent & factual), be very well coached in debating (or perhaps refreshing what she should have learned as a lawyer), and calmly and directly say "Donald, that's simply not true" and "What is the evidence of that xxx?"and perhaps even "Let's be adults here and not call people nasty names" as many times it is appropriate. Practicing with video clips of his speeches and prior debates and coaching with debate experts and social psychologists should be a standard preparation. They should be able to anticipate what attack directions and topics he will use, and be prepared. If he were to do his walking around and behind as he did with Hiliary, I'd find it hard to not get a little snarky with "Donald, do you need to go to the little boy's room?" or "Donald, if you don't stay at your podium, we'll have to give you a time out."
Sunshine is the best disinfectant. The brighter the light, the more we see. Democrats, independents and disengaged all need to be nudged and prodded to vote in greater numbers. Too many of them sit out elections.
Harris would slice & dice him. I think his comments in Chicago are the same he will use against her. I'm betting he'll have a lame excuse to not debate.
There is possibility that Trump chooses not to debate. Harris deciding ahead of proposed debate schedule that she will not debate Trump would cast her in a negative light. So, play out the clock and see what happens. If Trump does intend to debate Harris, he will show his hand sooner than later. My other point is: without the moderators fact checking and calling out lying, this proposed debate will just end up like the Hillary Clinton vs Donald Trump debate in 2015. If you recall, Clinton ran circles around Trump but the press went along with Trump's lying and buffoonery.
"To decline to appear would be seen as running away in fear and apprehension. If KH is as accomplished and composed as touted there are simple techniques familiar to even high school debaters to claim the high ground and maintain dignity, a pregnant pause being the simplest. The all-time winner, of course, was Reagan's "Now there you go again" rejoinder to a Carter spiel of liberal pablum.
Trump's hour-long blast furnace of interruptions and combative tone in the first 2020 debate, designed to draw Biden into irrational apoplexy, largely failed. Review of those tapes should be primer number one for her debate coaches."
I don't think these events should be called debates. More like debacles. Trump never answers a question or presents a plan or a coherent thought. I'm sure in a true debate, VP Harris would shred him. But he'll just make a ridiculous scene. I think maybe skip it. It would not change a single mind.
Thank you for stating the obvious. The media's lack of intestinal fortitude has allowed Trump et al to run rough shod with lie after lie after lie. His one tactic is change the subject: "I have good intentions. You're a nasty person." Or, "Fake news, fake news. It's all fake news." Or, who can forget the crass remark to Megyn Kelly who works for the network that's made Trump their pet? He is obnoxious, rude, and arrogant. While Kamala could deal with that, why should she have to? Those who have yet to catch on are never going to "get it". Offer, yes, but actually not necessary.
The question is, will Trump have the guts to debate VP Harris? She will do fine, actually, better than fine. She won't get angry or flustered; she'll have all the facts at her fingertips and can think on her feet. AND VP Harris "knows Donald Trump's type". I would argue that the moderators "fact-checking" is counterproductive, it allows Trump to simply attack the moderators and distract from his actually answering the questions or discussing policies. Maybe a fact check crawl at the bottom would be better. I think the format no audience, time limit and dead mic would be great. But, again, Trump is afraid to debate VP Harris, she'll show up and have a town hall type format, without Trumps histrionic boorish clown show.
Well, your last sentence covers it. I am not sure the network be trusted to do it's job, as it is interested less in substance than providing entertainment. I'd like to see them debate with sideboards, like a mic switch to turn him off when he interrupts and badgers. And maybe a physical barrier separating them. Be fun to watch him try to leap it once. Sorry.
Sorry Jim, that is part of the Trump "strategy", get everyone to blame the media for not being able to "control" him. The actual job of moderators is the facilitate discussion between the candidates, not be the story. No matter what the moderators do, if they give him an opportunity to attack them, and then he does not have to discuss policies, or even answer any questions.
VP should debate if he is willing ( doubtful) and when he gives one of his patented lie answers she should just chuckle and give him a “Now Donald” before exposing his histrionics. Maybe a couple “bless you” for icing on the brat cake.
It's a lose-lose situation for her in terms of Trump's camp. They'll bash her even if she verbally pummels him or if she refuses to debate. There is maybe 1% of voters that might be swayed. Those that don't really pay attention that might be swayed Trump's way if she refuses. So, yes. She should debate him.
Put me down as a firm “maybe.” I love the idea of Harris mopping the floor with Trump and she could probably do it. On the other hand, that’s hard to do without looking mean-spirited (too aggressive) or weak (not aggressive enough). And even if she does thread that needle, would it make a difference?
This is a moot point anyway, as Trump won’t debate her. What I think Harris should do is show up on September 10th and debate an empty chair.
It would not make a difference for IOWA voters as evidenced by the bad debates Trump, Ernst, and Reynolds have had and still won our votes (thanks to plenty of pressure from conservative business people who do not want regulations or to pay fair taxes.) Perhaps undecided people watch debates. I'd love to hear from them.
I believe that there is a sizable portion of the Iowa population that haven't voted in recent elections - many of them younger Iowans. I am holding out hope that Democrats can now attract some of those registered voters, get them to vote and perhaps have a different, even if just slightly different, outcome for Iowa.
I think she should debate him, BUT I can't get the image out of my mind of him lurking over her shoulder as she was speaking. That visual is the stuff of nightmares. It happened when the moderators in one of Hillary Clinton's debate with him let him roam the stage. Embodiment of evil.
Agree that Harris not agreeing to a debate would be translated as “afraid” to debate. That noted, there should be fact-checking chyrons running nonstop as even a skilled debater can’t fact check his tidal wave of lies. Though I doubt that he’ll agree to one - b/c she CAN and likely would wipe the floor with him 🤗
As previous commenters note, I see pros and cons to Harris debating Trump. One thing for sure, "the devil would be in the details" of the set up and moderation of such an event(s). I would argue that any debate should be preceded by a slew of Democratic campaign ads each showing Trump blathering a falsehood uttered on previous occasions, presenting contrary facts, and then challenging Trump to "stick to the facts" in the upcoming debate. That might help with uncommitted voters and the small segment of persuadable Republicans as well as solidify the commitments of those already in the Harris camp.
Tbh, I think you and Dave are both right. That said, if forced to choose, I don’t think she should debate him. The less oxygen Dems give him, the better.
Trump should be allowed as little air time as possible. Gish Gallop, not answering the question asked, lying at a pace that makes it difficult to refute, etc. It strengthens his support among the people he needs.
I don’t think there’s anything to be gained in Harris debating Trump. Even in the first debate with Biden and Trump it was obvious early on that it would not be a debate at all, as Trump would not even attempt to address the question being asked, but continued to spout his BS.
If Harris does debate Trump, it should be by the original location and rules hosted by ABC. Trump cannot be allowed to change that if he wants the debate to happen.
She should debate him but only under the terms previously agreed to. There needs to be strong moderation and real-time fact checking to the point moderators interrupt debaters. Unless there are strict rules to the thing, there’s no point to a debate.
I would like to see a debate where ground rules are clearly established and enforced. If I remember my high school debate protocols, I believe that you had to have facts that would substantiate any/everything that you claimed. I would like to see protocols that would include an opportunity for the opposing candidate to immediately ask for the evidence to support any statements that are made. And for that to be followed up with a ticker tape at the bottom showing whether fact checkers found the evidence to support or refute the evidence.
She needs to debate him and especially on Fox. To be the president requires facing our whole electorate and all that she would govern. We know the percent of Americans who dislike her but should she win, they will be in the aggregate of all Americans. Show her metal, and stand tall and refocus the questions and barbs. Show who you are.
Trump has backed out of the ABC debate and has proposed one on Fox. Does that change your mind? It confirms my original point that she has little to gain and much to lose debating him. ESPECIALLY on Fox, which is a GOP propaganda arm, not a legitimate news network.
Either way, she wins. The prosecutor vs the felon in a debate? It will be just like his NY fraid case. No debate? "Say it to my face like you would to Putin or Kim or Xi" will replace "Old and weird"
There’s no benefit. I’d love to watch her take him on. But he’ll be his usual boorish self: he’ll lie and interrupt, and that won’t make a whit of difference to his supporters—or, to be honest, to the moderators and the media. So: nothing to be gained.
She has Clinton/Trump debate to draw from. She knows his tactics of degrading women/people of color. The only exception I would make is a debate on Fox and in front of a Maga audience. She just needs to stay under control and not let Trump dictate the tone. She would still need to try and stay on offense and not let Trump off when he doesn’t actually answer a question. Make him look inept, which he is.
She should welcome the debate. When Trump asks one of those stupid off colored lies she should repeat the question back word for word and ask him, is that what you mean. She should follow up with the truth. In reality he is a weak disturbed man that she can easily dismantle.
I don't understand how posing a question about whether Harris should debate Trump qualifies as TDS. It seems pretty neutral to me. If it's exhausting, perhaps it would be better for you to disengage with these posts and spend your time with those who agree with your perspective.
Yes, she should debate Trump unless he insists on some stupid ground rules. I expect him to keep squirming around to dodge a debate. The Harris line “say it to my face” is totally appropriate.
Hate to see this become a game of chicken in which if either one commits NOT to debate the other, then this becomes one more element of public ridicule by the opposing party.
Will he be an a$$? Of course.
Can she handle it? Likely, unless he comes over and physically accosts her. In which case, I hope adequate security is prepared ahead of time.
Will he p!ss and moan following - of course, that is who he is.
Yes, offer to debate. Otherwise, Trump & company will use that avoidance in negative messaging. She must maintain decorum, persistently serve as fact checker (and keep her comments consistent & factual), be very well coached in debating (or perhaps refreshing what she should have learned as a lawyer), and calmly and directly say "Donald, that's simply not true" and "What is the evidence of that xxx?"and perhaps even "Let's be adults here and not call people nasty names" as many times it is appropriate. Practicing with video clips of his speeches and prior debates and coaching with debate experts and social psychologists should be a standard preparation. They should be able to anticipate what attack directions and topics he will use, and be prepared. If he were to do his walking around and behind as he did with Hiliary, I'd find it hard to not get a little snarky with "Donald, do you need to go to the little boy's room?" or "Donald, if you don't stay at your podium, we'll have to give you a time out."
Sunshine is the best disinfectant. The brighter the light, the more we see. Democrats, independents and disengaged all need to be nudged and prodded to vote in greater numbers. Too many of them sit out elections.
Harris would slice & dice him. I think his comments in Chicago are the same he will use against her. I'm betting he'll have a lame excuse to not debate.
There is possibility that Trump chooses not to debate. Harris deciding ahead of proposed debate schedule that she will not debate Trump would cast her in a negative light. So, play out the clock and see what happens. If Trump does intend to debate Harris, he will show his hand sooner than later. My other point is: without the moderators fact checking and calling out lying, this proposed debate will just end up like the Hillary Clinton vs Donald Trump debate in 2015. If you recall, Clinton ran circles around Trump but the press went along with Trump's lying and buffoonery.
Taking on whatever comes is what a President's role includes
She was a front-line prosecutor, a trial lawyer. If you think she can't deal with a belligerent witness, think again.
My earlier comment on Busieck's last Substack:
"To decline to appear would be seen as running away in fear and apprehension. If KH is as accomplished and composed as touted there are simple techniques familiar to even high school debaters to claim the high ground and maintain dignity, a pregnant pause being the simplest. The all-time winner, of course, was Reagan's "Now there you go again" rejoinder to a Carter spiel of liberal pablum.
Trump's hour-long blast furnace of interruptions and combative tone in the first 2020 debate, designed to draw Biden into irrational apoplexy, largely failed. Review of those tapes should be primer number one for her debate coaches."
I don't think these events should be called debates. More like debacles. Trump never answers a question or presents a plan or a coherent thought. I'm sure in a true debate, VP Harris would shred him. But he'll just make a ridiculous scene. I think maybe skip it. It would not change a single mind.
Thank you for stating the obvious. The media's lack of intestinal fortitude has allowed Trump et al to run rough shod with lie after lie after lie. His one tactic is change the subject: "I have good intentions. You're a nasty person." Or, "Fake news, fake news. It's all fake news." Or, who can forget the crass remark to Megyn Kelly who works for the network that's made Trump their pet? He is obnoxious, rude, and arrogant. While Kamala could deal with that, why should she have to? Those who have yet to catch on are never going to "get it". Offer, yes, but actually not necessary.
Americans deserve to discern the difference!
The question is, will Trump have the guts to debate VP Harris? She will do fine, actually, better than fine. She won't get angry or flustered; she'll have all the facts at her fingertips and can think on her feet. AND VP Harris "knows Donald Trump's type". I would argue that the moderators "fact-checking" is counterproductive, it allows Trump to simply attack the moderators and distract from his actually answering the questions or discussing policies. Maybe a fact check crawl at the bottom would be better. I think the format no audience, time limit and dead mic would be great. But, again, Trump is afraid to debate VP Harris, she'll show up and have a town hall type format, without Trumps histrionic boorish clown show.
Well, your last sentence covers it. I am not sure the network be trusted to do it's job, as it is interested less in substance than providing entertainment. I'd like to see them debate with sideboards, like a mic switch to turn him off when he interrupts and badgers. And maybe a physical barrier separating them. Be fun to watch him try to leap it once. Sorry.
Sorry Jim, that is part of the Trump "strategy", get everyone to blame the media for not being able to "control" him. The actual job of moderators is the facilitate discussion between the candidates, not be the story. No matter what the moderators do, if they give him an opportunity to attack them, and then he does not have to discuss policies, or even answer any questions.
Her rebuttal after each lie is “The fact is…”. Then a final comment “Truth matters.”
VP should debate if he is willing ( doubtful) and when he gives one of his patented lie answers she should just chuckle and give him a “Now Donald” before exposing his histrionics. Maybe a couple “bless you” for icing on the brat cake.
Makes me think of when she told Pence, "I'm talking." as he tried to interrupt her.
It's a lose-lose situation for her in terms of Trump's camp. They'll bash her even if she verbally pummels him or if she refuses to debate. There is maybe 1% of voters that might be swayed. Those that don't really pay attention that might be swayed Trump's way if she refuses. So, yes. She should debate him.
Put me down as a firm “maybe.” I love the idea of Harris mopping the floor with Trump and she could probably do it. On the other hand, that’s hard to do without looking mean-spirited (too aggressive) or weak (not aggressive enough). And even if she does thread that needle, would it make a difference?
This is a moot point anyway, as Trump won’t debate her. What I think Harris should do is show up on September 10th and debate an empty chair.
It would not make a difference for IOWA voters as evidenced by the bad debates Trump, Ernst, and Reynolds have had and still won our votes (thanks to plenty of pressure from conservative business people who do not want regulations or to pay fair taxes.) Perhaps undecided people watch debates. I'd love to hear from them.
I believe that there is a sizable portion of the Iowa population that haven't voted in recent elections - many of them younger Iowans. I am holding out hope that Democrats can now attract some of those registered voters, get them to vote and perhaps have a different, even if just slightly different, outcome for Iowa.
I think she should debate him, BUT I can't get the image out of my mind of him lurking over her shoulder as she was speaking. That visual is the stuff of nightmares. It happened when the moderators in one of Hillary Clinton's debate with him let him roam the stage. Embodiment of evil.
Agree that Harris not agreeing to a debate would be translated as “afraid” to debate. That noted, there should be fact-checking chyrons running nonstop as even a skilled debater can’t fact check his tidal wave of lies. Though I doubt that he’ll agree to one - b/c she CAN and likely would wipe the floor with him 🤗
As previous commenters note, I see pros and cons to Harris debating Trump. One thing for sure, "the devil would be in the details" of the set up and moderation of such an event(s). I would argue that any debate should be preceded by a slew of Democratic campaign ads each showing Trump blathering a falsehood uttered on previous occasions, presenting contrary facts, and then challenging Trump to "stick to the facts" in the upcoming debate. That might help with uncommitted voters and the small segment of persuadable Republicans as well as solidify the commitments of those already in the Harris camp.
Tbh, I think you and Dave are both right. That said, if forced to choose, I don’t think she should debate him. The less oxygen Dems give him, the better.
Trump should be allowed as little air time as possible. Gish Gallop, not answering the question asked, lying at a pace that makes it difficult to refute, etc. It strengthens his support among the people he needs.
I don’t think there’s anything to be gained in Harris debating Trump. Even in the first debate with Biden and Trump it was obvious early on that it would not be a debate at all, as Trump would not even attempt to address the question being asked, but continued to spout his BS.
If Harris does debate Trump, it should be by the original location and rules hosted by ABC. Trump cannot be allowed to change that if he wants the debate to happen.
She should debate him but only under the terms previously agreed to. There needs to be strong moderation and real-time fact checking to the point moderators interrupt debaters. Unless there are strict rules to the thing, there’s no point to a debate.
I would like to see a debate where ground rules are clearly established and enforced. If I remember my high school debate protocols, I believe that you had to have facts that would substantiate any/everything that you claimed. I would like to see protocols that would include an opportunity for the opposing candidate to immediately ask for the evidence to support any statements that are made. And for that to be followed up with a ticker tape at the bottom showing whether fact checkers found the evidence to support or refute the evidence.
She needs to debate him and especially on Fox. To be the president requires facing our whole electorate and all that she would govern. We know the percent of Americans who dislike her but should she win, they will be in the aggregate of all Americans. Show her metal, and stand tall and refocus the questions and barbs. Show who you are.
Trump just agreed to debate Harris as long as Fox News is the moderator (s). She has nothing to gain debating Trump, esp if Fox News is involved.
Trump has backed out of the ABC debate and has proposed one on Fox. Does that change your mind? It confirms my original point that she has little to gain and much to lose debating him. ESPECIALLY on Fox, which is a GOP propaganda arm, not a legitimate news network.
Agree but if she DOES, it should be under same guidelines. No audience. Mic cut offs etc.
Either way, she wins. The prosecutor vs the felon in a debate? It will be just like his NY fraid case. No debate? "Say it to my face like you would to Putin or Kim or Xi" will replace "Old and weird"
Yes, if it’s an actual debate and not just a rally for him on FOX.
There’s no benefit. I’d love to watch her take him on. But he’ll be his usual boorish self: he’ll lie and interrupt, and that won’t make a whit of difference to his supporters—or, to be honest, to the moderators and the media. So: nothing to be gained.
She has Clinton/Trump debate to draw from. She knows his tactics of degrading women/people of color. The only exception I would make is a debate on Fox and in front of a Maga audience. She just needs to stay under control and not let Trump dictate the tone. She would still need to try and stay on offense and not let Trump off when he doesn’t actually answer a question. Make him look inept, which he is.
She should welcome the debate. When Trump asks one of those stupid off colored lies she should repeat the question back word for word and ask him, is that what you mean. She should follow up with the truth. In reality he is a weak disturbed man that she can easily dismantle.
Donald Trump would die by a thousand cuts were he to debate Kamala Harris. He will then declare himself winner.
This could have been written about you:
https://substack.com/redirect/96a75f78-6f8d-4c01-ba69-2318bf5179c1?j=eyJ1IjoiajJoZmoifQ.IngvVZxpIm3f-BjHbmw6F9VXupR9Z0KKL6zIWE2dho8
Your TDS outshines anything at all you write. It’s exhausting.
No, I have a remarkable fascism detector.
Right
I don't understand how posing a question about whether Harris should debate Trump qualifies as TDS. It seems pretty neutral to me. If it's exhausting, perhaps it would be better for you to disengage with these posts and spend your time with those who agree with your perspective.
Engaging only with those who agree with yourself is for children. Go for it.
So is name calling and attaching labels. Go for it.