This is an interesting question for political hacks. I suspect the Harris team believes it has facts, momentum with a majority of key constituencies and an articulate speaker on its side. But when have facts and common sense ever slowed Trump down, especially when he faces prison time should he lose in November? He'd be a wild man, hoping to fluster his younger opponent. Trump has a low ceiling but a very high floor with voters (he's not going to lose anyone from his cult but he's unlikely to attract new voters) while Harris could lose some waffling, less committed voters with a shaky performance. Trump is in the rare position of being on the news cycle defensive and that spells danger for an American public weary of politics.
Rod, I think all Americans should be reminded constantly that Trump needs to win to keep himself out of prison, or at least having significant financial penalties imposed upon him. Even I keep forgetting that point. A desperate, cornered animal is dangerous. That’s what we saw yesterday at NABJ.
Following President Joe Biden's disastrous debate performance against Donald Trump that sparked calls for Mr. Biden to step aside. I argued that Trump should refuse to have another debate with Biden because there was nothing to prove. They already had met. However, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris should have one debate. And GOP VP candidate JD Vance and the Democratic VP should also have one debate. It's an important American tradition regardless of how much we dislike any of the past, present or future presidential hopefuls. Yes, many of the familiar stump lines will be spewed by both. But it's the journalists jobs to ask hard questions and let voters decide who presented the best case to be the next U.S. president--cliches, hyperboles and outright lies aside. A Donald Trump-Kamala Harris debate? Yes, of course. But only one.
Steve, I agree that it WAS an important American tradition. But Trump ruined that by disobeying the rules and being so hostile during debates. I would always hope reasonable candidates could have a meaningful debate on the issues. But to give him an open mic to spew insults, lies and exaggerations? No thanks.
Au contraire, mon frére. To decline to appear would be seen as running away in fear and apprehension. If KH is as accomplished and composed as you so tout 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 the tapes should be primer number one for her debate coaches.
I concede the point that he will attack her for being afraid to debate. I don’t know that that loses her any votes. Debates are risky. Harris has momentum. Why give Trump a chance to throw sand into the gas tank?
You provide an interesting perspective, Dave, which is what good journalism is supposed to do. My consistent chant to anyone who will listen is "focus on the middle!" The deep reds and blues are for the most part locked in with their candidate. It's that small-but-critical group of independents and non-MAGA Republicans who will likely decide the outcome of what appears to be a close election. A strong performance by Harris on the debate stage may carry significant weight in winning their votes, just as Biden's weak debate performance cost him four more years.
My fear is it can only hurt her. I don’t know that she picks up any votes in the middle by kicking his butt. She could lose some if she gets flustered, if she comes on too strong, or not strong enough. It’s hard to look dignified in a cage match with a bully.
Our 45th president couldn't lose yesterday. He won the minute he set foot on that stage. If the journalists had taken a softer approach, he would have looked like someone who can be reasonable. If they were tough, which they were, he just went into attack mode like a bad-guy "heel" pro wrestler generating "heat" and driving the story line.
Which is what he's done ever since that session in Ames eight years ago when he took a shot at John McCain. He says outrageous stuff and draws all attention to himself. And his fans love it. I recall the gentleman at one of my favorite local establishments who said, four years ago at the outset of the COVID shutdown in Iowa, "I don't care much for politics, but I like to watch Trump tell off reporters."
Trump didn't invent the political theater of excoriating reporters, but he's very good at it.
And, respectfully, when any journalist, usually a broadcast journalist, prefaces a question with a speech, they're asking for it. Especially with this guy. Maybe they're even trying to provoke it. I remember watching one White House press conference early in Trump's administration when Jim Acosta of CNN was in a prolonged, testy Dan Rather -vs.-Nixon type exchange with the 45th president, and I saw my former Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier colleague and Bloomberg News White House correspondent Jennifer Jacobs waiting for her turn to ask a question while Acosta and Trump did their thing.
I kind of felt sorry for Jennifer in that moment; she's a top-notch journalist who sticks to the facts and fends off questions when pundits like Chris Matthews tried to goad her into editorializing. She's a workhorse, not a showhorse, a consummate professional and a wonderful person. I'm going to show my print media bias here, but it seems there's a certain showboat factor with some broadcast journalists. Yes, provide context, but be concise.
Trump got exactly what he wanted out of that session yesterday. But as far as his pokes at the vice president's racial or ethnic self-identification go, then-Sen. Barack Obama handled that in one sentence when asked a similar question by Steve Kroft on "60 Minutes" years ago:
"When they treat you like you're Black, you're Black," then-Sen. Obama said.
Many observers might agree that Mr. Trump, probably to no one's surprise, administered the full treatment yesterday. As the vice president said later, the American people deserve better --- particularly as voters, in the need to be an informed electorate. The guiding, bottom-line question in any political dialog or exchange should be, "what does this have to do with running the country?"
From what I've read in press accounts, it's Trump who's shying away from a debate with the vice president. There's one sharp, concise question someone could ask the 45th president that would guarantee a debate in a heartbeat:
Great take, Pat. I would only push back so far as to say the first question was completely factual. Trump says awful things and then takes offense when somebody points out how awful his statements are.
I get it. The approach, the tone, makes a difference, even on tough questions. I just get so tired of him playing the victim.
Dave, using the word debate is laughable, as any sane and reasonable individual knows. How about we ask for a presidential wellness test that involves candidates answering history-based questions from commentators, scored on knowledge and demeanor. No name-calling, racist language, or personal attacks allowed. The format resembles a quiz show like Jeopardy, emphasizing facts and respectful discourse rather than debate. I propose: Presidential Jeopardy. "Alex, I'll take THE CONSTITUTION for $1,000."
I think Trump's main goal was to be able to say he isn't afraid to debate a Black woman and that he proved it by being interviewed in an auditorium by three Black women with an audience of Black people. It's a tactic like firefighters who start small grass fires to deny fuel to an approaching firestorm. I don't think Trump wants a debate with Harris. Maybe his bone spurs are acting up again
He is afraid to debate Harris that is why he is cancelling & trying to set up a Fox debate by his rules. Harris is smart enough not to go for it. I think Harris or anyone if he starts bullying, name calling etc. stop, call him out for bullying, verbal harassment. Refuse to be abused in that manner and point out that he had mentored that for kids who bully classmates to the point of committing suicide. If he doesn't stop, refuse to be treated that way and leave the stage. That is how one stops abusive harassment. Rules for the debate should include: if Trump doesn't answer questions, do not e him to go on & to his own agenda, he must answer or he won't be recognized to speak. Lies should be called out and not just glossed over & fact checkers should be in place to immediately respond. His behavior should be alleviated and handled in pre-determined rules. If he won't agree, no debate. No one anywhere should put up with that behavior from anyone no matter who it his. Trump, again does not harass people, that is not even legal is it? Why are we ignoring and condoning it. He is NOT SPECIAL! But, he thinks he is and we treat him as if he is. He is not deserving of that kind of special treatment.
Agreed! By now there are very few voters on the fence about who to vote for. Trump loyalists want to see him on stage flaunting his everyday racist, misogynistic behavior. They truly believe he has been a victim of subtle falsehoods and outright lies.
Those who felt backed into a corner to vote for Biden are energized by Harris and already believe she can knock him off game. It's doubtful they will change their minds if she passes on a Trump debate. We know from Trump's stage interview with the Association of Black Journalists that instant fact checking only escalates his exaggerations.
Do "blood sport " exhibitions at this point in the election process truly sway intelligent voters? Let Trump tell his base Harris was afraid to debate him. To that, my mind says "You're goin' down, baby."
Harris doesn't need to credentialize herself on Trump's stage. She's got important work to do before she's elected.
This just in…Trump has backed out of the scheduled debate on ABC and has proposed doing one instead on Fox. I feel even stronger now that she should not do that. She has much to lose and little to gain. Although all networks would likely carry the debate, I see no reason should try to validate Fox, which is a propaganda arm of the GOP, not a legitimate news network.
Before Trump abandoned ship on the agreed to schedule, and proposed his own version supposed by howling monkeys and a hostile network, I would have disagreed with you. Now, I see no upside for her in caving to his demands. She just needs to get her show on the road and get herself and Tim Walz in front of every American she can Before November.
First and foremost the two candidates should not be in the same building.... but rather appear on a split screen. Each candidate should be given 10 of the same questions ahead of time then be asked those questions individually live on air. NOTHING IS GAINED BY A NAME CALLING, SHOUTING, IDIOTIC MATCH.... (DEBATE IS NOT NECESSARY)... WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT EACH ONE WILL DO IF ELECTED!
Time to answer each question should be limited to 5 minutes per question per person. If the respondent does not stop on time, the monitor will have a cut-off switch on their microphone.
Question #1. What do you consider the 5 most important concerns of the American people?
This is an interesting question for political hacks. I suspect the Harris team believes it has facts, momentum with a majority of key constituencies and an articulate speaker on its side. But when have facts and common sense ever slowed Trump down, especially when he faces prison time should he lose in November? He'd be a wild man, hoping to fluster his younger opponent. Trump has a low ceiling but a very high floor with voters (he's not going to lose anyone from his cult but he's unlikely to attract new voters) while Harris could lose some waffling, less committed voters with a shaky performance. Trump is in the rare position of being on the news cycle defensive and that spells danger for an American public weary of politics.
Rod, I think all Americans should be reminded constantly that Trump needs to win to keep himself out of prison, or at least having significant financial penalties imposed upon him. Even I keep forgetting that point. A desperate, cornered animal is dangerous. That’s what we saw yesterday at NABJ.
Following President Joe Biden's disastrous debate performance against Donald Trump that sparked calls for Mr. Biden to step aside. I argued that Trump should refuse to have another debate with Biden because there was nothing to prove. They already had met. However, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris should have one debate. And GOP VP candidate JD Vance and the Democratic VP should also have one debate. It's an important American tradition regardless of how much we dislike any of the past, present or future presidential hopefuls. Yes, many of the familiar stump lines will be spewed by both. But it's the journalists jobs to ask hard questions and let voters decide who presented the best case to be the next U.S. president--cliches, hyperboles and outright lies aside. A Donald Trump-Kamala Harris debate? Yes, of course. But only one.
Steve, I agree that it WAS an important American tradition. But Trump ruined that by disobeying the rules and being so hostile during debates. I would always hope reasonable candidates could have a meaningful debate on the issues. But to give him an open mic to spew insults, lies and exaggerations? No thanks.
Au contraire, mon frére. To decline to appear would be seen as running away in fear and apprehension. If KH is as accomplished and composed as you so tout 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 the tapes should be primer number one for her debate coaches.
I concede the point that he will attack her for being afraid to debate. I don’t know that that loses her any votes. Debates are risky. Harris has momentum. Why give Trump a chance to throw sand into the gas tank?
We shall see what happens!
You provide an interesting perspective, Dave, which is what good journalism is supposed to do. My consistent chant to anyone who will listen is "focus on the middle!" The deep reds and blues are for the most part locked in with their candidate. It's that small-but-critical group of independents and non-MAGA Republicans who will likely decide the outcome of what appears to be a close election. A strong performance by Harris on the debate stage may carry significant weight in winning their votes, just as Biden's weak debate performance cost him four more years.
My fear is it can only hurt her. I don’t know that she picks up any votes in the middle by kicking his butt. She could lose some if she gets flustered, if she comes on too strong, or not strong enough. It’s hard to look dignified in a cage match with a bully.
Our 45th president couldn't lose yesterday. He won the minute he set foot on that stage. If the journalists had taken a softer approach, he would have looked like someone who can be reasonable. If they were tough, which they were, he just went into attack mode like a bad-guy "heel" pro wrestler generating "heat" and driving the story line.
Which is what he's done ever since that session in Ames eight years ago when he took a shot at John McCain. He says outrageous stuff and draws all attention to himself. And his fans love it. I recall the gentleman at one of my favorite local establishments who said, four years ago at the outset of the COVID shutdown in Iowa, "I don't care much for politics, but I like to watch Trump tell off reporters."
Trump didn't invent the political theater of excoriating reporters, but he's very good at it.
And, respectfully, when any journalist, usually a broadcast journalist, prefaces a question with a speech, they're asking for it. Especially with this guy. Maybe they're even trying to provoke it. I remember watching one White House press conference early in Trump's administration when Jim Acosta of CNN was in a prolonged, testy Dan Rather -vs.-Nixon type exchange with the 45th president, and I saw my former Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier colleague and Bloomberg News White House correspondent Jennifer Jacobs waiting for her turn to ask a question while Acosta and Trump did their thing.
I kind of felt sorry for Jennifer in that moment; she's a top-notch journalist who sticks to the facts and fends off questions when pundits like Chris Matthews tried to goad her into editorializing. She's a workhorse, not a showhorse, a consummate professional and a wonderful person. I'm going to show my print media bias here, but it seems there's a certain showboat factor with some broadcast journalists. Yes, provide context, but be concise.
Trump got exactly what he wanted out of that session yesterday. But as far as his pokes at the vice president's racial or ethnic self-identification go, then-Sen. Barack Obama handled that in one sentence when asked a similar question by Steve Kroft on "60 Minutes" years ago:
"When they treat you like you're Black, you're Black," then-Sen. Obama said.
Many observers might agree that Mr. Trump, probably to no one's surprise, administered the full treatment yesterday. As the vice president said later, the American people deserve better --- particularly as voters, in the need to be an informed electorate. The guiding, bottom-line question in any political dialog or exchange should be, "what does this have to do with running the country?"
From what I've read in press accounts, it's Trump who's shying away from a debate with the vice president. There's one sharp, concise question someone could ask the 45th president that would guarantee a debate in a heartbeat:
"You afraid of getting beat by a girl?"
Great take, Pat. I would only push back so far as to say the first question was completely factual. Trump says awful things and then takes offense when somebody points out how awful his statements are.
I get it. The approach, the tone, makes a difference, even on tough questions. I just get so tired of him playing the victim.
Dave, using the word debate is laughable, as any sane and reasonable individual knows. How about we ask for a presidential wellness test that involves candidates answering history-based questions from commentators, scored on knowledge and demeanor. No name-calling, racist language, or personal attacks allowed. The format resembles a quiz show like Jeopardy, emphasizing facts and respectful discourse rather than debate. I propose: Presidential Jeopardy. "Alex, I'll take THE CONSTITUTION for $1,000."
I like the concept, Pam. But Trump would attack even Alex, because he’s from Canada.
I think Trump's main goal was to be able to say he isn't afraid to debate a Black woman and that he proved it by being interviewed in an auditorium by three Black women with an audience of Black people. It's a tactic like firefighters who start small grass fires to deny fuel to an approaching firestorm. I don't think Trump wants a debate with Harris. Maybe his bone spurs are acting up again
He is afraid to debate Harris that is why he is cancelling & trying to set up a Fox debate by his rules. Harris is smart enough not to go for it. I think Harris or anyone if he starts bullying, name calling etc. stop, call him out for bullying, verbal harassment. Refuse to be abused in that manner and point out that he had mentored that for kids who bully classmates to the point of committing suicide. If he doesn't stop, refuse to be treated that way and leave the stage. That is how one stops abusive harassment. Rules for the debate should include: if Trump doesn't answer questions, do not e him to go on & to his own agenda, he must answer or he won't be recognized to speak. Lies should be called out and not just glossed over & fact checkers should be in place to immediately respond. His behavior should be alleviated and handled in pre-determined rules. If he won't agree, no debate. No one anywhere should put up with that behavior from anyone no matter who it his. Trump, again does not harass people, that is not even legal is it? Why are we ignoring and condoning it. He is NOT SPECIAL! But, he thinks he is and we treat him as if he is. He is not deserving of that kind of special treatment.
Agreed! By now there are very few voters on the fence about who to vote for. Trump loyalists want to see him on stage flaunting his everyday racist, misogynistic behavior. They truly believe he has been a victim of subtle falsehoods and outright lies.
Those who felt backed into a corner to vote for Biden are energized by Harris and already believe she can knock him off game. It's doubtful they will change their minds if she passes on a Trump debate. We know from Trump's stage interview with the Association of Black Journalists that instant fact checking only escalates his exaggerations.
Do "blood sport " exhibitions at this point in the election process truly sway intelligent voters? Let Trump tell his base Harris was afraid to debate him. To that, my mind says "You're goin' down, baby."
Harris doesn't need to credentialize herself on Trump's stage. She's got important work to do before she's elected.
This just in…Trump has backed out of the scheduled debate on ABC and has proposed doing one instead on Fox. I feel even stronger now that she should not do that. She has much to lose and little to gain. Although all networks would likely carry the debate, I see no reason should try to validate Fox, which is a propaganda arm of the GOP, not a legitimate news network.
Before Trump abandoned ship on the agreed to schedule, and proposed his own version supposed by howling monkeys and a hostile network, I would have disagreed with you. Now, I see no upside for her in caving to his demands. She just needs to get her show on the road and get herself and Tim Walz in front of every American she can Before November.
First and foremost the two candidates should not be in the same building.... but rather appear on a split screen. Each candidate should be given 10 of the same questions ahead of time then be asked those questions individually live on air. NOTHING IS GAINED BY A NAME CALLING, SHOUTING, IDIOTIC MATCH.... (DEBATE IS NOT NECESSARY)... WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT EACH ONE WILL DO IF ELECTED!
Time to answer each question should be limited to 5 minutes per question per person. If the respondent does not stop on time, the monitor will have a cut-off switch on their microphone.
Question #1. What do you consider the 5 most important concerns of the American people?
etc..... etc..... etc....