I agree with the first part, this is Trump trying to change the narrative to his favor. Harris shouldn’t agree to the Fox News debate unless 1) Trump also agrees to also do the previously scheduled ABC debate and 2) The Fox News debate has no audience and balanced moderators.
On the second part about Biden would have been better off not debating, I disagree. That debate disaster revealed how far his inner circle had been protecting him, and has put us in a much stronger position to beat Trump in November.
Deb Fischer is up for reelection in the ordinary course. The other is a special election to serve the remaining two years in the seat Ben Sasse resigned from in 2023 to be president of the University of Florida.
This morning the NYT bought into Trump’s proposal for a September 4 debate on Fox News (with a live audience) by publishing this morning a story titled
Trump Agrees to a Fox News Debate With Harris on Sept. 4
There must have been some outcry over this headline (Harris had not agreed) because the headline was changed to
Donald Trump proposed a debate with Kamala Harris on Sept. 4 in an event moderated by Fox News.
The Harris campaign repudiated this phony agreement story at 10:19 AM this morning.
If you needed any evidence that the NYT is disposed to favor Trump, then this phony agreement story can be part of your best proof.
When I see your posts about climate change, and I read every one I see and appreciate you consistently returning to the topic, I feel that scary flutter in my chest that says “nothing is going to matter anyway, is it?” I imagine where we would be if FOX had spent the last 3 decades scaring people about climate change instead of immigrants and POC. Then I go down the rabbit hole of Gore getting SCOTUSed out of the presidency, Iraq, financial bubbles making the rich richer, Trump and MAGA …
Then I hit reset and move on. But this last 24 years has definitely become the test pattern of my brain.
If Trump gets his way with the Fox News debate there will be a friendly crowd that cheers every time he talks and boos every time Harris talks. Every question will be about an area where R’s think they have an advantage like immigration, crime, trans kids in school bathrooms. She would be 100% on defense the entire time, unable to talk about Dem policy on climate change, education, the Project 2025 stuff.
And you can bet there won’t be a mic cutoff to let the other person speak like there was in the recent Biden/Trump debate. Trump will talk over Harris every time she speaks.
The only fun part would be if he tries to stalk Harris from behind, like he did with HRC, and she turns around and clocks him right in the kisser. That might make it worth debating.
Point. Counterpoint. Sounds like a good idea for a TPM debate. And I respect the opinions of BOTH of the debators. Can we in the Hive handle it? Can TPM?
Problem is that TCF has tried to usurp the entire process set up, negotiated, and he made a contract to complete two debates. Now, the weasel is reneging on his word. And, trying to make it look like he’s the one on high ground. ABC should sue him. It’ll give something the SCOTUS can sort out three, four years from now. Should be interesting. By that point the SUPREMES will have in place a clear doctrine of “Once a King, Always a King.”
The only people who might pay any attention to what this guy says must be feeling deflated by the enthusiasm Kamala’s generated, and her fundraising success is evidence of that enthusiasm. By claiming this fundraising wasn’t a true grassroots success, Mitchell hopes to buoy Trumpster spirits.
