Friends, as I write this, both major party presidential candidates and campaigns are debating whether or not there will even be a debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, and, if so, when and where. This raises the even more interesting question: which candidate would be more likely to benefit from said debate -- or is the most likely outcome a political "nothingburger"? I don't pretend to have the answers, but a debate would be risky for both participants, and both may also believe that they currently have the upper hand, or are likely to have it by September, so, for those reasons, it's conceivable that we will remain at an impasse and no debate will ever materialize. What's your view?
In other news, a whole bunch of Facebook money is about to be channeled into the 2024 election, but with an important twist: whereas before, in 2020, the vast majority of the money went to boost turnout in blue areas in swing states (eek!), this time only "rural" and "nonmetro" areas will be eligible, and primarily the funds will be disbursed in non-battleground states. Interesting! You could make the argument, therefore, that, because Republican voters are concentrated in the countryside, this formula actually amounts to an effort to boost GOP turnout and Republican prospects in the 2024 election. It certainly won't help at all to maximize the number of votes that the Dems can bank in their urban strongholds. So, therefore, is Mark Zuckerberg hedging his bets, and maybe even assuming a Trump/GOP victory in 2024 -- one for which, he, Zuckerberg, plans to take partial credit? It could be...
Dr. Waddy from Jack: When Gore and "W" debated in 2000 I listened on the radio. Even there Gore's frantic dismissiveness was obvious. "W" played him well by displaying some restraint.
ReplyDeleteDJT has shown an encouraging ability recently to refrain from hyperbole. If he debates her and carries on in that manner he stands to best her. We can count on her to be in characteristic self righteous hyperbolic dudgeon and to employ the full arsenal of "isms" radicals like her routinely hold to condemn upon reflexive accusation. At the same time we can expect of her much Clintonesque preemption : "oh yes, the border is terribly violated but I was not in charge and I will fix it" " I will choose not to hamper drilling, including fracking and the right to bear arms is sacred, I agree" "You see, I can 'do' moderate and I stand against my opponent's 'extremism'. I will fix his supposedly 'lawful" Scotus with 'innovative' measures to bring it into the 20th (sic) century, you betcha!" "As for criminals , in their infinite diversity, why lock 'em up and ditch the key". Can she be coached out of such characteristic haughtiness and disingenuousness? Maybe ,but Dukakis, Gore and Hillary weren't.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: DJT agreed to debate Biden on ABC. In doing so he did not agree to debate another candidate on ABC. Go ahead Dems, try to discredit him for "backing out" while your darling refuses to debate on Fox. Everyone , no matter where they stand politically, knows how unprofessionally leftist biased ABC is. Fox balances this off with its obvious conservative inclination. ABC has helped to define "fake news" for decades now; why should DJT do the dems' bidding?
ReplyDeleteThere is a scent of Brer Rabbit in Kamala's position. "Oh I'm just raring to debate Trump!" Wha shore yu are Kamala!
Yes, Harris may appear aggressive and haughty in a debate, but the bottom line is that she'll be coherent, and she'll probably deliver a lot of roundhouse punches that will please the MSM and Democrats to no end. I doubt that a debate will substantially change the race or improve the dynamics for Trump and the GOP. At best it's likely to be a draw. At worst, it will be seen as a Harris triumph, by at least half the country.
ReplyDeleteProbably more important than who hosts the debate is what the ground rules are. As long as the moderators mind their own business, as the CNN folks did, Trump has nothing much to fear from them.