I agree that on balance Harris is better off not debating. But there is upside - More Trump in that format is More Better. Harris so much smarter and more clever. Most importantly, she got over her early jitters and should be even stronger. She certainly could move the needle a bit in her direction with undecideds.
I agree that taking no risk is the best percentage given that they already have video from the first debate.
I don't think Harris needs another debate. She's been busy on the campaign trail talking to voters and doing more media interviews so voters are becoming more aware of who she is an what she stands for. Plus, with some heavy-hitters endorsing her (yes, I do put Taylor Swift in that category) and the Trump campaign literally imploding with the Springfield debacle, more military vets turning to Harris, and both Vance and Trump doubling down on every nonsensical statement with (still!) no policy visions to present (and I don't see them changing), Harris doesn't need another debate. Voters will always remember her poise and logic in the debate (yes, even when she evaded some of the questions, she still looked presidential) while Trump still seems desperate and whiny (and I don't see THAT changing, either). She should apply the classic martial arts method; turn the anger and negative energy from the opposition against themselves and just stand by and watch them fold inward. They seem to be doing a better job of destroying themselves than what Harris & Waltz could do fro the outside.
I completely agree with Chris here. Harris can probably not do any better than she did in the last debate and although Trump can do worse , Harris had set a higher bar for herself from the last debate. Harris should take the win and run with it. Spend more time in the Swing states to continue to explain her position on the issues. She will bring this thing home in November and become the Margaret Thatcher of America in 2025!!. No need for another debate
Agree with Doc. Kamala did what she had to do in the first debate, and if they have another one, she would be expected to destroy him again. Anything less than that would be considered a failure. Kamala may already have the votes she needs to win the election. Why risk losing any of them? And how many more of the undecideds can she win over anyway, if they haven't already hopped on the train?
I agree completely. I always thought Harris' people were saying they wanted another debate (wink wink!) but secretly hoping Trump would decline, which of course he did. I thought that because while I do believe she has his number and would beat him again, why take that chance? And now that he's falling behind Trump may get desperate and change his mind, but why go along with that? As you suggest, set a deadline and then walk away.
I like the political strategy of “when the other side is imploding, just get out of the way.”
There is also a sports analogy - in answering the question about how a team will respond to the other team’s strategy, the coach says, “we’re going to execute our game plan. Doesn’t matter what they do.”
And now, I think that is a good strategy for Harris/Walz. She is talking to the press a bit more, they are focusing on the swing states. Trump is going to Long Island - really?? And playing golf.
I agree with Nate. Make a firm date to accept or take the offer off the table. We all know Trump will eventually agree to a debate; especially if he’s still down by 5 nationally come November (using his refusal as leverage). Harris needs to shut him down, because it won’t help her.
However, it has to be Trump’s decision, otherwise he’ll try to say it’s Kamala who has refused to debate, and of course the MSM will happily oblige.
No benefit to a debate, but would like to see her more in various media interviews, and also start saying things like “you give me a Democratic House and Senate, and see what we can do for the American people.” And, we need a Democratic Senate to replace any Supreme Court opening that come up…. Start broadening the effort down ticket. No efforts can be made on reproductive health, child care, immigration, the climate, etc. if we wind up with a split Congress.
I agree that there is no need for the vice-president to have another debate. However, let's look at the inevitable. It is inevitable that if a second debate is held VP Harris will, again, absolutely trounce Trump. Trump has proven that he cannot compete in this format, under these circumstances. I told a friend in 2016, "He isn't going to change." I was right. I'm still right. I don't worry about our VP being in another debate because she will be excellent...again. Trump will be Trump...again. I'm just not certain it is worthwhile for Harris to take time from the campaign trail to prep for and do another debate. And yes, my opinion is remarkably wishy-washy, huh?
I chatted about this with a friend a few days ago. My point was that another debate offers no clear advantage to Harris. I held that even if she wins it, it's unlikely that she will be as good as she was and Trump will be as bad as he was. Another debate is more likely an opportunity for Trump to reclaim lost ground than it is a chance for Harris to extend her lead.
Normally I would say that the person who is leading in a race (which virtually all indications say Harris) should refuse to debate, for the reasons you give. In a debate, there is a possibility Harris will pull a Dukakis and make a serious gaffe that costs her a bunch of votes. But in this case, we're talking about debating Trump, who is the gaffe- and lying-champ. Harris is a skilled debater, as was shown earlier, and any gaffe she may give will be more than offset by Trump. So in this case, yes Harris should ask for a debate anytime, anywhere, and if Trump is smart (is he?) should refuse, as it can only get worse for him.
Great question. Timing is everything. If she does have another debate it should be after Trump’s trip to Springfield which his campaign is setting up as the mother of all battles between MAGA ideology and Democrats. Trump’s last stand, or the season finale, if you like. Harris can then prosecute him on live TV then. Because that event and what happens at it, the unfortunate civil conflict, the arguments about immigration, will determine the election IMO.
Kamala should decline to do another debate. Trump would then cry foul and say she is afraid to debate him a second time and “lose again”, like Biden did in 2016, which he didn’t and she didn’t either. If Trump then insists on a second debate, then she should agree. I have no reason to believe she would perform any less (not implying she did poorly, on the contrary) than she did the first time. I likewise have no reason to believe Trump would perform any better, and most likely worse, if that’s possible. So it’s a win-lose (Harris win, Trump lose), regardless if they debate or not.
No more debates! Just gives Trump national air time to spew lies an conspiracies! Although I did enjoy watching Kamala's facial expressions to his craziness 😂
But I do think she should do televised Town Halls!! What a great way for her to get her message out!
I had to laugh when Chris started a sentence "I take Trump at his word . . .." That undermines the analysis right there! But on the substance, I disagree. She doesn't have a secure lead and now is not the time to go to a prevent defense. I'm pretty confident that she will again outperform him (when has he ever had a great debate?) and consolidate her lead. She has silenced the doubters and proven that it's a good forum for her. The comparison with Trump is going to be favorable. Is there risk? Sure, but there is also substantial upside, unlike the NYT or other mainstream media interviews that Chris is always urging.
Totally agree with you Chris on this one. She shouldn't say she won't just let it sit there and make it His decision. Which, apparentlly, he already has.
The calculation to me is do you think Trump will take the bait again? If you do, then absolutely push for a debate and spend 90 minutes needling him again.
But if we get I don't wanna be here teleprompter Trump who just sticks to the message from his closing statement, that wouldn't be good for her.
I see zero upside in another debate for Harris' side. And I'm not quite sure that Trump can spin it to his benefit to agree to another.
I am curious how this Walz v Vance debate turns out though.
I agree that on balance Harris is better off not debating. But there is upside - More Trump in that format is More Better. Harris so much smarter and more clever. Most importantly, she got over her early jitters and should be even stronger. She certainly could move the needle a bit in her direction with undecideds.
I agree that taking no risk is the best percentage given that they already have video from the first debate.
I don't think Harris needs another debate. She's been busy on the campaign trail talking to voters and doing more media interviews so voters are becoming more aware of who she is an what she stands for. Plus, with some heavy-hitters endorsing her (yes, I do put Taylor Swift in that category) and the Trump campaign literally imploding with the Springfield debacle, more military vets turning to Harris, and both Vance and Trump doubling down on every nonsensical statement with (still!) no policy visions to present (and I don't see them changing), Harris doesn't need another debate. Voters will always remember her poise and logic in the debate (yes, even when she evaded some of the questions, she still looked presidential) while Trump still seems desperate and whiny (and I don't see THAT changing, either). She should apply the classic martial arts method; turn the anger and negative energy from the opposition against themselves and just stand by and watch them fold inward. They seem to be doing a better job of destroying themselves than what Harris & Waltz could do fro the outside.
I completely agree with Chris here. Harris can probably not do any better than she did in the last debate and although Trump can do worse , Harris had set a higher bar for herself from the last debate. Harris should take the win and run with it. Spend more time in the Swing states to continue to explain her position on the issues. She will bring this thing home in November and become the Margaret Thatcher of America in 2025!!. No need for another debate
Agree with Doc. Kamala did what she had to do in the first debate, and if they have another one, she would be expected to destroy him again. Anything less than that would be considered a failure. Kamala may already have the votes she needs to win the election. Why risk losing any of them? And how many more of the undecideds can she win over anyway, if they haven't already hopped on the train?
I agree completely. I always thought Harris' people were saying they wanted another debate (wink wink!) but secretly hoping Trump would decline, which of course he did. I thought that because while I do believe she has his number and would beat him again, why take that chance? And now that he's falling behind Trump may get desperate and change his mind, but why go along with that? As you suggest, set a deadline and then walk away.
I like the political strategy of “when the other side is imploding, just get out of the way.”
There is also a sports analogy - in answering the question about how a team will respond to the other team’s strategy, the coach says, “we’re going to execute our game plan. Doesn’t matter what they do.”
And now, I think that is a good strategy for Harris/Walz. She is talking to the press a bit more, they are focusing on the swing states. Trump is going to Long Island - really?? And playing golf.
I agree with Nate. Make a firm date to accept or take the offer off the table. We all know Trump will eventually agree to a debate; especially if he’s still down by 5 nationally come November (using his refusal as leverage). Harris needs to shut him down, because it won’t help her.
However, it has to be Trump’s decision, otherwise he’ll try to say it’s Kamala who has refused to debate, and of course the MSM will happily oblige.
Just some thoughts!…:)
Kamala is playing it safe. Why risk blowing a lead?
No benefit to a debate, but would like to see her more in various media interviews, and also start saying things like “you give me a Democratic House and Senate, and see what we can do for the American people.” And, we need a Democratic Senate to replace any Supreme Court opening that come up…. Start broadening the effort down ticket. No efforts can be made on reproductive health, child care, immigration, the climate, etc. if we wind up with a split Congress.
I agree that there is no need for the vice-president to have another debate. However, let's look at the inevitable. It is inevitable that if a second debate is held VP Harris will, again, absolutely trounce Trump. Trump has proven that he cannot compete in this format, under these circumstances. I told a friend in 2016, "He isn't going to change." I was right. I'm still right. I don't worry about our VP being in another debate because she will be excellent...again. Trump will be Trump...again. I'm just not certain it is worthwhile for Harris to take time from the campaign trail to prep for and do another debate. And yes, my opinion is remarkably wishy-washy, huh?
I chatted about this with a friend a few days ago. My point was that another debate offers no clear advantage to Harris. I held that even if she wins it, it's unlikely that she will be as good as she was and Trump will be as bad as he was. Another debate is more likely an opportunity for Trump to reclaim lost ground than it is a chance for Harris to extend her lead.
Normally I would say that the person who is leading in a race (which virtually all indications say Harris) should refuse to debate, for the reasons you give. In a debate, there is a possibility Harris will pull a Dukakis and make a serious gaffe that costs her a bunch of votes. But in this case, we're talking about debating Trump, who is the gaffe- and lying-champ. Harris is a skilled debater, as was shown earlier, and any gaffe she may give will be more than offset by Trump. So in this case, yes Harris should ask for a debate anytime, anywhere, and if Trump is smart (is he?) should refuse, as it can only get worse for him.
Great question. Timing is everything. If she does have another debate it should be after Trump’s trip to Springfield which his campaign is setting up as the mother of all battles between MAGA ideology and Democrats. Trump’s last stand, or the season finale, if you like. Harris can then prosecute him on live TV then. Because that event and what happens at it, the unfortunate civil conflict, the arguments about immigration, will determine the election IMO.
Kamala should decline to do another debate. Trump would then cry foul and say she is afraid to debate him a second time and “lose again”, like Biden did in 2016, which he didn’t and she didn’t either. If Trump then insists on a second debate, then she should agree. I have no reason to believe she would perform any less (not implying she did poorly, on the contrary) than she did the first time. I likewise have no reason to believe Trump would perform any better, and most likely worse, if that’s possible. So it’s a win-lose (Harris win, Trump lose), regardless if they debate or not.
No more debates! Just gives Trump national air time to spew lies an conspiracies! Although I did enjoy watching Kamala's facial expressions to his craziness 😂
But I do think she should do televised Town Halls!! What a great way for her to get her message out!
I had to laugh when Chris started a sentence "I take Trump at his word . . .." That undermines the analysis right there! But on the substance, I disagree. She doesn't have a secure lead and now is not the time to go to a prevent defense. I'm pretty confident that she will again outperform him (when has he ever had a great debate?) and consolidate her lead. She has silenced the doubters and proven that it's a good forum for her. The comparison with Trump is going to be favorable. Is there risk? Sure, but there is also substantial upside, unlike the NYT or other mainstream media interviews that Chris is always urging.
Totally agree with you Chris on this one. She shouldn't say she won't just let it sit there and make it His decision. Which, apparentlly, he already has.
The calculation to me is do you think Trump will take the bait again? If you do, then absolutely push for a debate and spend 90 minutes needling him again.
But if we get I don't wanna be here teleprompter Trump who just sticks to the message from his closing statement, that wouldn't be good for her.