How serious are you?
It’s sometimes hard to assess the degree of earnestness from someone seeking something, and it’s not exactly as though we can start each query with, “On a scale from 1-10, tell me how much you really want this?”
But when Kamala Harris came out earlier this week saying she hoped to draw Republican nominee Donald J. Trump into another presidential debate, no one could tell whether she was serious or if she was just saying so to generate “he’s chicken” news headlines. So many in the establishment media were quick to anoint Harris the “winner” of the September 10 debate that signing up for a second wouldn’t, at least theoretically, be to her advantage. She already beat him (allegedly), right?
Nor would it appear that luring Trump into consenting to another “trap” situation was the best scenario for him, either. Trump committed a plethora of unforced errors in the first go ‘round and generally didn’t look very good in the presentation, but most post-event polls showed the race remaining tied… or that Harris, depending on the particular survey in question, might’ve gained a smidgen of a point or two – a margin that has already evaporated before our eyes.
The second assassination attempt on Trump’s life drew focus away from Kamala and back to Trump, portraying him in a sympathetic light.
The narrowness of the race and the small “bump” Kamala took from the Philadelphia forum must be frustrating to the Democrat fill-in standard-bearer. Here it was, Harris finally found a setting that she felt comfortable in – and where she was confident she could goad Trump into committing more faux pas – and there just aren’t any more similar events on the calendar.
Do we think Kamala’s being forthright in desiring another go-round? Absolutely. We probably wouldn’t even need to ask her. But there are other ways to draw out the truth, even from Kamala Harris. In an article titled “There’s one way Harris could show she is serious about debating Trump again”, W. James Antle III wrote at the Washington Examiner:
“Harris has never adopted the ‘any time, any place’ standard for herself when it comes to any public appearances, much less debates. She did not accept debates hosted by either Fox News or NBC News.
“Both candidates are clearly more interested in generating a negative news cycle for their opponent than taking a principled stand in favor of open debate. With the race looking close, both have a heightened interest in the debate ground rules.
“If Harris really wants to debate Trump, she could agree to meet him on Fox News. If he refused to appear, Harris’s debate bravado would be more justified. It would also increase the chances of a second Harris-Trump debate actually happening. There’s an old adage about that which looks, swims, and quacks like a duck, and it applies to a favorite debate-dodging metaphor.”
Or, if it swims and quacks like a duck, it might be an endangered species in Springfield, Ohio thanks to the presence of Haitian illegal immigrants. Sorry, couldn’t resist.
I agree with Antle that a Trump insistence upon moving the debate to Fox would reveal the answer to the “Are you serious?” question hanging over Kamala’s head. By flagrantly lobbying for another debate – and this time so close to Election Day – Harris has opened herself up to “You look desperate” accusations that were bound to come her way the more she made a spectacle of herself by obsessing over tempting Trump to meet her on not-so-neutral ground.
It shouldn’t be overlooked that Kamala wasn’t always viewed as a polished debate master. In the 2020 Democrat primaries, you should recall, Harris started out quickly with her memorized “I was that little girl” line targeted at senile Joe Biden in the first Democrat event, but once her “wow” debate performance began fading into the calendar, the luster wore off awful quickly.
As soon as her opponents recognized the California senator was a “serious” contender, they began preparing special topics and material for her to answer for, which exposed who she truly was. Tulsi Gabbard (who was a Democrat at the time and vying for the now extinct party running lane of “moderate” and “not crazy”) probably didn’t need to work all that hard digging up oppo research on Harris that pinned her down on her record as a Bay Area prosecutor and Golden State Attorney General who played favorites.
Cackling Kamala didn’t appear so tough when the establishment media delved deeper into her actual record, the kind of depth that would rarely come out in a presidential-level debate. “Big picture” issues are the kinds Harris prefers, where she can get away with talking about being a “middle class kid” when addressing inflation and generally favoring things like “fracking” when her record indicates otherwise.
No wonder Harris craves another shallow content debate with Trump, especially one scheduled so close to the actual voting time. Her hope would be to repeat her Philadelphia performance, and Kamala’s betting CNN would go right along since Trump is obviously not acceptable to them. CNN and its “moderators” received a pass from Trump and the viewing audience in June because Biden was just that awful.
Yes, the hair sniffin’, nude swimmin’, ice cream eatin’ old goat really was horrible.
Don’t forget that CNN’s Dana Bash and Jake Tapper broached a number of Democrat softball type questions that night, too, including beseeching Trump to respond on how much he intended to subsidize childcare if he were elected president again. Really? That’s the best CNN can do? Childcare a federal issue? It still makes me shake my head.
Not only should Trump let it be known that he’d be open to participating in another joint debate only if it were hosted by Fox News (with proven impartial moderators like Brett Baier and Martha MacCallum), but he could further gain points by insisting the format be limited to a town hall setting where citizen questioners ask both candidates about pre-approved (by the network host) topics. The questions themselves wouldn’t need to be pre-screened, but the topics would have to be.
Here's thinking cackling Kamala is absolutely terrified at the prospect of relinquishing such a degree of control over the process, since a town hall debate would be the most difficult for the candidates to practice for. If it was reported Kamala burrowed herself in a hotel room for a week prior to the Sept. 10 event searching for a means to plan and rehearse all possible answers, she couldn’t possibly hope to do so when the audience members call the shots.
Yes, it means Harris and Trump would have to speak off-the-cuff, which Trump is quite comfortable with. This observer would not imply Trump is unimpeachable even in that type of environment, but he’s well-versed in talking with “ordinary” people, so much so that he doesn’t come across as mean or angry no matter what he says. Trump doesn’t need to be told how to engage in “chit chat” (like Harris allegedly was). He’s been speaking to “commoners” his whole life.
(Note: Both candidates did agree to participate in separate town hall forums (October 8 for Trump in Miami and October 10 for Harris in Las Vegas) on Spanish language network Univision. They will field questions from undecided Hispanic voters about key issues.)
Kamala Harris grew up in a home with academians as parents, then went to law school. Further, her claims of once having worked at McDonald’s have never been verified. She’s had to fabricate an ability to speak with “regular” people, which is why she avoids it. Kamala is so phony that people don’t like her, which explains why her approval ratings have remained so low.
Plus, Trump doesn’t have much incentive to agree to another debate
We wouldn’t necessarily expect anything different from Trump, but his reasoning for not wanting to debate again appears to be on-the-level. Simply put, Trump says he’s far ahead in the polls and doesn’t feel a need to put his position at risk by debating Harris. He’s already debated twice – including once with senile Joe Biden – and therefore there’s not much to be garnered by doing it again.
In essence, by debating, Trump would just be helping Harris with her enormous stature deficit. The fact she can scarcely put two coherent sentences together doesn’t make her look important. But standing next to Donald Trump does. She’s like a minor league baseball player being promoted to pitch against Shohei Ohtani or Aaron Judge.
Not only that, earlier this week, Gallup came out with a report where the issues voters care about are heavily leaning towards Trump and the Republican Party in 2024. As reported by Paul Bedard at the Washington Examiner, Gallup said, “Nearly all Gallup measures that have shown some relationship to past presidential election outcomes or that speak to current perceptions of the two major parties favor the Republican Party over the Democratic Party. Chief among these are a Republican advantage in U.S. adults’ party identification and leanings, the belief that the GOP rather than the Democratic Party is better able to handle the most important problem facing the country, Americans’ dissatisfaction with the state of the nation, and negative evaluations of the economy with a Democratic administration in office.”
These Gallup numbers are more than just alarm bells for Democrats, they’re possible game-enders.
Translation: Kamala needs the extra debate to get the establishment media talking about something other than how bad her poll numbers are vis-à-vis the public’s opinions and comparisons to 2016 and 2020. The Biden administration still isn’t popular, and no matter how many times Harris says she represents “A new way forward”, American’s aren’t buying it.
“Are you serious, Kamala?” If you are, then perhaps your campaign people should get on their knees and go begging to the Fox News folks to set something up. If Fox were to assent to holding a forum, Trump would feel pressure to show up – or look “afraid”. But even then, he might not do it.
Why? Because he doesn’t have to, that’s why.
The topic of debates will certainly receive some coverage next week since both vice presidential nominees, J.D. Vance and “Tampon Tim” Walz, will take part in their own verbal jousting match on Tuesday night. The establishment talkers will do everything feasible to make Walz look knowledgeable and Vance seem ill-prepared – or weird – but Americans will form their own opinions.
Donald Trump can decide whether or not to do another debate with Kamala Harris. If she’s really serious about wanting another one, she needs to provide a good reason for Trump to risk encountering more establishment media tag-team interference.
Joe Biden economy
inflation
Biden cognitive decline
gas prices,
Nancy Pelosi
Biden senile
Kamala Harris candidacy
Donald Trump campaign
Harris Trump debates
J.D. Vance
Kamala vice president
Speaker Mike Johnson
Donald Trump assassination
2022 elections
Donald Trump
2024 presidential election
Tim Walz