It is amusing, in a mordant way, to hear Kamala Harris tell her rallies that Donald Trump has an obligation to voters and democracy to agree to a second debate with her. She might as well be wearing a giant blinking “I am a shameless hypocrite!” neon sign on her head, as would be her party, if it had a literal head.
Democrats in general are ethically estopped from making this complaint. President Biden and his party rejected debates before the Democratic primaries. Harris was awarded her DEI Presidential nomination without having to test herself against any other potential nominees, in a debate or on a ballot. Trump, meanwhile participated in a training-wheels debate against whom he was assured would be his opposition in November, and when that presumed nominee metaphorically burst into flames, the Democrats demanded and got a Mulligan.
If I were Trump, I wouldn’t have agreed to the last debate.
The way ABC rigged the debate to boost Harris’s chances made Trump’s decision to eschew future public muggings by the Axis of Unethical Conduct (“the resistance,” Democrats and the mainstream media) obvious and unassailable. The moderators “factchecked” Trump five times and Harris not at all: now there’s neutrality for you. (Nah, there’s no mainstream media bias!) It’s not as if Harris didn’t repeatedly misrepresent facts and repeat familiar Democrat Big Lies, because she did. The decision had apparently been made by ABC brass to “Get Trump!”
Pollster and former Clinton strategist Mark Penn—yes, he could be looking to expand his client base— said that ABC News should hire an outside law firm to investigate whether there was collusion between the network and the Harris campaign and to “what extent” they had planned on “rigging the outcome of this debate.”
“I actually think they should do a full internal investigation, hire an outside law firm. I don’t know how much of this was planned in advance,” Penn said on a podcast. “I don’t know what they told the Harris campaign…I think the day after, suspicion here is really quite high, and I think a review of all their internal texts and emails really should be done by an independent party to find out to what extent they were planning on, in effect, you know, fact-checking just one candidate and in effect, rigging the outcome of this debate. I think the situation demands nothing less than that.”
I doubt there was any actual coordinated collusion; there didn’t need to be. David Muir’s nightly news show is MSNBC-level anti-Trump and pro-Harris; it was predicted that he would place his fist on the sale, and he did. A Fox News talking head this morning opined that ABC wanted to look blatantly anti-Trump to pull viewers from MSNBC. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised, but why the moderators were so biased is irrelevant. What matters is that neither Trump nor the American public can trust any network or set of moderators to do their jobs ethically. The first presidential debate in 1960 required amendments by the Congress to the broadcast laws then in place regarding campaign communications because there had been concerns expressed about media interference with campaign speech. That seems so quaint now.
I suspect, but do not know, that Trump’s polling shows him that Harris’s stealth policies candidacy strategy isn’t working, and that she needs another debate and he doesn’t. In that event, the decision to say “No more!” is competent and responsible, as well as justified.
[Tangential note: After hearing Harris tell a rally “Debates are good, right?” I realized that habit of hers irritates me as much or more than John McCain’s cringy “My friends,” Bob Dole’s referring to himself in the third person, and John Kasich’s “And guess what?” that he repeated during the 2015 and 2016 GOP candidates’ debates.]
Ethics Alarms 
I half-think that Trump is laying a trap for her.
He denies wanting another debate until she, smelling weakness, is adamant that there needs to be another one.
Then, he turns and sets the ground rules: 3 more debates, one on Fox, one town hall style; and one where each of them pick a moderator to ask questions of the other party.
That is when she will back-track.
Can Trump be that scheming? Yes. Clever? Maybe. If that is his plan, could he keep his mouth shut about it for 20 minutes? Ooooh, that’s a tough one.
Anyway, it would not surprise me if he comes back at some point and gets her to back down.
-Jut
?
He denies wanting another debate until she, smelling weakness, is adamant that there needs to be another one.
She already is adamant she wants another one.
sure, but if he keeps saying no, she will probably try goading him into another debate.
she is not to that point yet.
-Jut
Yeah, something like what JutGory said.
Can anyone explain why the hell team Trump agreed to an ABC moderated debate in the first place?
Republicans never fail to disappoint…đź¤
I hope Jut is correct. If not, I would agree that another debate would be acceptable but given that the Democrats insisted on the first two venues the last debate should be on a network chosen by Trump as would be the moderators. If Kamala rejects that offer it will be proof that she cannot withstand the rigor of the presidency.
With that said we should be stating unequivocally that neither the first nor the second were debates they were interviews. Debates require both sides to answer the same questions. Below are some questions that should be put to both candidates.
Policy questions that should have been put to both candidates
1.     Unfettered immigration is on the minds of many Americans how will you as president manage the flow of migrants and those already here that have violated our immigration laws in the last 5 years?
2.     Two wars in which the US is playing an indirect role are occurring in the middle east and in Ukraine how as president will you work to bring peace to those regions or end our involvement in those wars?
3.     When it comes to crime, what policies do you think are the most efficient in reducing crime both in the short run and long run?
4.     What is the right balance for the United States in terms of being globally competitive and environmentally responsible?
5.     How can government work to keep inflation at the target rate established by the Fed such that fiscal and monetary policy complement one another. And should the Fed be responsible for establishing that target inflation rate?
Yes, the ABC event was a Harris Walz infomercial.
ABC and any other network that fails to pose the same policy questions to each candidate should be disqualified to moderate debates for some period of time.- maybe ten years
If he cannot do any better in a debate than he did the other night — well, he shouldn’t agree to any more.
But I think it would be a good strategic option to demand Harris choose either a Fox debate or a choose your own moderator debate.
Now that only works if your moderator gets to ask the other person questions…
Despite mostly leftist pundits claiming Harris won the debate, it’s Harris who wants another debate. Am I wrong in thinking that generally, any contest usually sees the loser as the one wanting a rematch? The moderators did manage to get under Trump’s skin, but I think viewers noticed all Harris did was to regurgitate the usual leftist deceptions and untruths while saying little else. Finally, if Trump agrees to another debate, all he needs to do is select Fox or preferably Newsmax and let them use their own moderators. Harris controllers would never allow this because it would be suicide.
Ed
I would like to see a real journalist who is not afraid to press the candidates equally. Catherine Herridge or Meghan Kelly would be good choices, I think Brett Baer is too timid and the others at Fox are more pundits than journalists. While I would like to see Mark Levin interrogate Harris that would be seen the same as Muir but on steroids. Another good choice would be Jonathan Turley or even our host Jack would be preferable to virtually any legacy media talking head.
Hey, what do you mean “even”????
That was Trump’s line, comparing it boxing. Although in “Rocky,” the victorious Apollo Creed says, “Ain’t going to be no rematch” and Rocky says, “Don’t want one!”
Am I wrong in thinking that generally, any contest usually sees the loser as the one wanting a rematch?
She doesn’t want a “rematch” she wants to debate Trump again since this debate boosted her numbers.
Marshall/Turley would be like “Double Impact” – twice the Van Dammege. I would watch that debate for sure!!
Let’s see… Trump refused to participate in the GOP debates in primary season. Why? Because anyone with more brains than a rag doll would mop the floor with him. If the GOP had any scruples, they would have insisted. They didn’t. The Dems had an incumbent and they didn’t want noise. Not exactly ethical, but at least understandable strategically. The Republicans don’t have even that excuse.
Trump then beat the Dems’ closest impersonation of the aforementioned rag doll in their debate.
Then he got clobbered in the Harris debate, as even top Republicans concede. But not by her; by him. If the moderators helped Harris, it was primarily by allowing him to blather about crowd sizes, concepts of a plan (which, of course, he’s had about nine years to develop), and racist nonsense about eating pets in Ohio. He was in “old man yells at cloud” territory.
Harris didn’t win; Trump lost. She wants another debate to drive home the point. He may or may not want another, but at least his handlers know better than to let that happen. They may or may not ultimately succeed, as he is sufficiently narcissistic and delirious that he probably does think another debate would help his cause.
“Lost” in political debates means only one thing in real life rather than in debate competitions: does it benefit a candidate or hurt his or her chances of election? Trump has “lost” every debate (except when his opponent started speaking in tongues) by rational debate-judging standards, which is irrelevant. The debate demonstrated the degree to which the news media is unethically colluding with the Democrats, and proved that the Harris’s campaign strategy is to emulate Obama’s breezy, non-substantive platform, except that 1) he was good at it and 2) he had no record of saying ridiculous things, and she does. The debate didn’t help Harris with anyone she needs to persuade, and it did help Trump. This understandably drives people crazy.
“Because anyone with more brains than a rag doll would mop the floor with him.”
Au contraire, Curmie, Trump faced off against 16 of the GOP’s best, including some very effective and popular governors and senators, and defeated the lot in 2016. Many of them were far more intelligent and wise than he was, and a least one (Christie) was capable of taking him on in an open fight. None of them came close to “mopping the floor” with him. What is more, the media and the pollsters all seemed to think Hilary won all three debates against Trump then. A lot of good that did her. That said, he didn’t do too well in the debates against Biden in 2020, although I wonder if the fact that he had a deadly virus and was trying to manage a pandemic, the George Floyd Freakout, and a campaign had something to do with that.
Clobbered? I don’t know about that. Did he let himself get baited? Yes. Did he pursue too many squirrels? Yes. Did Harris show that her vision of the country is somehow better than his or justify her own record so far? Nope. Did she show she has substance? No. I have to say, she came off as more smug than Trump. This isn’t a joke and he isn’t a joke, and the problems that the next president are going to face are not jokes either. She isn’t going to be able to just laugh at Benjamin Netanyahu and then tell him to do as she says. She isn’t going to be able to tell Putin “I’m speaking.” She’s not going to be able to try to pass the buck or deny like she is trying to do with the border.
Trump, or at least his handlers, know there is no reason to grant her a second debate. As was pointed out, usually it’s the loser who asks for a rematch. Her acting like this gives the lie to the belief she won. Even if she did, that doesn’t ultimately mean much. Mitt Romney supposedly bested Obama in the first debate in 2012, but he did absolutely nothing to capitalize on it and ended up on the list of also-rans. Also even if she did, it doesn’t seem to have changed too too much as far as the numbers go. Elections are rarely won or lost on one debate, unless you happen to be senile and trying to hide it. Trump isn’t.