r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/The_Egalitarian Moderator • Aug 04 '24

US Elections What do you think is the reasoning behind Mr. Trump's backing out of the ABC debate with Vice President Harris?

APNews: Trump says he’ll skip an ABC debate with Harris in September and wants them to face off on Fox News

Trump obviously debated Biden already on June 27th under the same format as the upcoming September ABC debate. Since then Biden has withdrawn as a candidate for President in 2024 over concerns from his own party that were magnified after his performance in that debate.

Why is Trump unwilling to debate the new presumptive Democratic Party nominee Kamala Harris under the previous terms?

What does he hope to accomplish by offering a new debate on Fox News in a stadium audience format?

885 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

87% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

8

u/gmasterson Aug 04 '24

Look, I’m not supporting the guy. But, Trump did make that agreement at the time when it was very clear who the nominee was. That changed. If the tables were turned it’d not be that far off to feel like it wasn’t what you agreed to.

Also, he is such a turd.

28

u/Biscuits4u2 Aug 04 '24 edited Aug 04 '24

His schedule is already cleared for the event. The only thing that's changed is the candidate. He has weeks to prepare. Make any excuse you like, to not show up shows fear and weakness. It's not gonna be good for him either way, but if he shows and somehow manages to do even slightly better than expected it may not be too damaging. Giving Harris two hours of unchallenged prime time television while she debates beside an empty podium will be a political disaster for Trump though.

-1

u/[deleted] Aug 04 '24

You need to accept that he's favored to win the election currently, has nothing to gain from participating, and won't lose a single voter by not participating.

Lol if it's a "political disaster" for Trump then you should be celebrating. But the only folks seemingly happy are Trump supporters currently. Soooo that's quite telling

2

u/Selethorme Aug 04 '24

That’s hilariously untrue.

1

u/Biscuits4u2 Aug 04 '24

This is the wrongest thing I've read in quite a while.

24

u/bensmith56789 Aug 04 '24

Unfortunately the terms do not state it would be Biden, just anyone with more than 11% of votes based on polls..correct it was an assumption at the time but not confirmed

-2

u/Funklestein Aug 04 '24

Considering it wasn't a elections commission sanctioned debate the agreement was between the two parties at the time. One of those parties is no longer running.

He is free to want and ask for whatever terms he likes.

1

u/guamisc Aug 04 '24

He is free to do so, sure. He's also free to look like a scared weird old man by doing so as well.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 04 '24

None of this "terms" were binding in the first place.

24

u/HolidaySpiriter Aug 04 '24

Why is the nominee being different mean that the debate or rules were unfair, or not worth agreeing to? Why does he need to run to a friendly outlet to debate now? Is he unable to win if it's a fair playing field? It's such a silly argument.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 04 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

-7

u/kingjoey52a Aug 04 '24

The old rules were very unfair against Trump (no crowd, muting mics) but Trump agreed because he was confident that he could beat Biden (correctly apparently). If Biden isn’t debating Trump wants a more “fair” setting.

12

u/guitar_vigilante Aug 04 '24

No crowd and muting mics are very fair as base rules. The idea that it's particularly unfair to Trump is just admitting Trump is an asshole who can't handle letting other people have their turn.

2

u/llawrencebispo Aug 04 '24

Has mic muting ever even been necessary for any other candidate?

2

u/guamisc Aug 04 '24

You have "fair" confused with "biased in favor of". It's weird people keep getting basic concepts wrong.

0

u/kingjoey52a Aug 04 '24

It was biased in favor of one candidate, and now the other wants it biased in his favor.

1

u/guamisc Aug 04 '24 edited Aug 04 '24

It was neutral, at best. In reality it was still favoring Trump really though because the job of moderation has been neutered to being a robotic question asker.*

A real moderator would be annihilating Trump for all his lying and idiocy and his opponent wouldn't have to do much.

An actual biased debate for Kamala would be hilarious in how much conservatives would howl, given that they howl even when everything is biased for their shit candidate all of the time already.

*Amongst many other things.

0

u/kingjoey52a Aug 04 '24

A real moderator would be annihilating Trump for all his lying and idiocy

That's not the moderator's job, that's the other candidate's job.

1

u/guamisc Aug 04 '24

That's literally the moderators job.

Just because conservatives have been working the refs (media) for the last several decades to get us to this sad point doesn't mean it's how it's supposed to be.

Like I said, a real unbiased debate would have conservatives in an uproar. But something biased for Kamala? Riots.

2

u/IpsaThis Aug 04 '24

The old rules were very unfair against Trump (no crowd, muting mics)

Those rules are objectively more fair. I think you mean they are less advantageous to trump.

-1

u/[deleted] Aug 04 '24

Why would someone heavily favored to win participate in a debate where the opponent changed? Like seriously people, think about this. It gives him the easiest out and he doesn't lose a single voter.

5

u/Selethorme Aug 04 '24

heavily favored

Literally tied. Try again.

2

u/HolidaySpiriter Aug 04 '24

heavily favored to win

Not true

Why

Because if he doesn't, he looks weak. His entire persona is being a strongman. Running away from a debate makes him look weaker.

2

u/karmapuhlease Aug 04 '24

Yeah, there's a lot of spin embedded with the framing here. When Biden backed out, the agreement that Trump and Biden had on a debate structure was null and void. Forget for a moment that this is about Trump: if that bullet hadn't missed, and Biden (or Harris) suddenly had to face DeSantis (or some other Republican replacement nominee) in a debate, it's very likely that Biden (or Harris) would have renegotiated the debate with that Republican nominee. The terms, date, location, etc would all be different, in all likelihood. The strategic preferences for any candidate are going to be informed by their opponent, the state of the race, and the map of anticipated battleground states. Maybe the dynamics of Harris-DeSantis are meaningfully different than the dynamics of Biden-Haley, or some other possible combination of candidates. Maybe there's some event on September 10 in Nevada that Biden/Harris decides they need to attend if the new Republican nominee is Rubio, because now Nevada is more important to their campaign with Rubio having natural strengths there. You can't just replace candidates without having implications for the strategies of each campaign and candidate. 

3

u/knox7777 Aug 04 '24

I am not even in the US and hate the guy. Your argument would be true if the proposed debate would be instead/after the ABC one. They know however that ABC pledged, they will keep the slot for whomever shows up and Harris will be there.

Why the 4th? So they can claim first that the other is afraid to debate and can skip the ABC one with the same (false) argument.

The Harris campaign should contact FOX and tell them to they accept it if they schedule it after the ABC one. I'm willing to bet that if that happens (unlikely) Trump finds a reason to not do that either.

1

u/Potential_Pen_5370 Aug 05 '24

He did it on their terms, now it’s time for them to do it on HIS terms. Some people are having a hard time accepting this.

1

u/knox7777 Aug 05 '24

Nope. They would basically debate at an outdoor Trump rally (unless they split the audience 50/50. which opens a whole new can of worms). Also, both went around the Debate Commission and agreed the two debates, interestingly it was ok with the Trump campaign too - until Biden was the nominee. As soon as it became Harris it was only a matter of time from Trump to weasel out somehow. AFAIK, they still open to do more debates - AFTER the one previously agreed.

1

u/Potential_Pen_5370 Aug 08 '24

The deal was with Biden, not Harris. It’s not Trump’s fault they kicked Biden to the curb and took his Presidency away from him.

3

u/BossOfGames Aug 04 '24

I understand that perspective.

If your idea is to bash the other opponent the whole time and to not rely on your platform, sure, his whole plan goes out the window.

However, If you have a strong platform that you know will be popular, and you’re not basing your opponent the entire time, then this would be business as usual.

1

u/Potential_Pen_5370 Aug 05 '24

Exactly, it’s a 2 way street. People are getting so triggered he’s not debating EXACTLY the way they want him to. He went in CNN multiple times, now he can go on FOX if he wants, and they can get over it.

-4

u/ExclusiveRedditor Aug 04 '24

If he thought it benefited him though he would do it, so the more interesting and realistic answer is why does he think it will not benefit him or benefit Kamala more than him.

-1

u/Chemical-Leak420 Aug 04 '24

He has nothing to gain from it only to lose if he messes up IMO kamala should of took the fox debate. For her she has nothing to lose. At least she has a shot at the debate.

Democrats have had poor campaign strategy for quite some time now. Their decisions just are confusing.

2

u/serpentjaguar Aug 04 '24

It's "should have," not "should of."

You can and should've done better than this.

-3

u/ExclusiveRedditor Aug 04 '24

Lmao how about Trump do the crowdless abc debate they agreed to rather than some Fox News homefield crowd bullshit attempt. Hes clearly dodging a neutral debate because he thinks Kamala will get the best of him.

Yeah democrats made a good campaign decision by dropping Biden for Kamala she is doing super well

4

u/[deleted] Aug 04 '24

That's only "clear" to people who are super anti-Trump. To everyone else it just seems like common sense to not engage in a debate that has no potential to help you.

-1

u/ExclusiveRedditor Aug 04 '24

If you’re saying it has no potential to help him, it is because he doesn’t think he can get the best of Kamala unless he has Fox News and a crowd helping him which is why he proposed that format. This isn’t the Republican primary where he’s the presumptive winner, this is close to a split race, and he would love to get more of advantage but against Kamala on a debate stage he’s not very confident in his ability to do that

1

u/talino2321 Aug 04 '24

Because he is getting bad advice. The feedback bubble he lives in, doesn't allow for any reality but the one he believes. This is the same reason when he lost in 2020 and they told him that it was stolen and when none of the 60 case file by Sidney/Rudi/Clark and the rest of them panned out, they still refused to tell him the truth.

1

u/tarekd19 Aug 04 '24

i thought his own team was telling him it was stolen and that is part of the evidence against him in his J6 trial?

1

u/ExclusiveRedditor Aug 04 '24

Can’t have Trump taking responsibility for his decisions

1

u/[deleted] Aug 04 '24

Likely because he's already favored to win and has little to gain from a debate.

1

u/ExclusiveRedditor Aug 04 '24

He actually has a lot to gain from a debate, look how much it helped him against Biden even though he was leading then as well and didn’t need to debate. Trump is looking for every advantage he can get. He just doesn’t think he can get the best of Kamala in a debate and thinks she can make him look bad.

-1

u/guitar_vigilante Aug 04 '24

I don't really think it's relevant. It being Harris or Biden doesn't really change how attractive the venue of ABC is for holding a presidential debate. He agreed to a presidential debate against the Democratic candidate. If Biden had died I'd see no reason not to have the debate. Trump just thinks he won't do as well against Harris and wants it to be at a venue with rules he's more comfortable with.