Will There Be Any Meaningful Presidential Debates?
Will the public see any meaningful debates during the 2024 presidential election cycle? That is an open question at this point. By "meaningful," I mean a primary debate with at least one of the frontrunners for the two major parties' nominations on the stage, or a general election debate between the two parties' nominees. Right now, there is no guarantee any of this will happen.
On the Democrats' side of the aisle, President Joe Biden is an incumbent who is running unchallenged by any serious candidate. In such situations, it is typical for the party to forgo any primary debates, which is precisely what the Democrats have announced this time around. There are two other candidates who have managed to get their names in the news -- Marianne Williamson and Robert F. Kennedy Junior -- but neither of them has any realistic chance of winning the nomination (which is a good thing, considering how flaky they both are). Biden debating them would be fairly pointless, in other words.
On the Republican side, frontrunner Donald Trump is already signalling that he is likely just going to skip the first debate, while staging his own competing event on the same night. At first, he was reportedly annoyed with the host and/or the venue (for his own petty reasons) for the first two debates, but Trump has recently said he doesn't really see any upside to debating at all, since he is so far ahead in the polls. This makes perfect sense, I must admit. Trump is right when he says that if he participates the ratings will be through the roof but if he doesn't then it'll probably be a snoozer. And he's also right that he would be the biggest target on a Republican debate stage, so the entire night would be Trump fielding attacks from all the other candidates -- most of whom are polling below five percent. Why should he legitimize them by showing up? If he skips the debates, he gets an additional benefit -- all the attacks will then be directed at the GOP candidate polling in second place, currently Ron DeSantis. It would certainly be to Trump's benefit to have DeSantis taken down a few pegs, so all around it is hard to argue with the conclusion that there are a whole bunch of upsides to Trump skipping the debates and a big possible downside to him participating (if someone manages to land a truly solid blow against him).
Then again, this is Donald Trump we are talking about, and nothing would feed his ego like sparring with all the other candidates. Trump loves to debate, if he is allowed to do so by his rules (which basically consist of him being allowed to shout over anyone else at any time). So we'll have to see. Perhaps he'll skip the first few debates and then when the rules get stricter for who is invited (they are reportedly going to ramp up the entry criteria with each debate) and the field gets thinned out, perhaps Trump will join in the fun just to see those high television ratings. But there's no guarantee Trump will attend any of the Republican debates, at this point. If Trump continues to dominate the polling, he'll see the entire debate process exactly the same way Joe Biden and the Democrats do -- as being pointless and a distraction from his general election campaign.
But will we ever see Biden and Trump (or whichever Republican is eventually nominated) on a debate stage next year? That also appears to be an open question.
Every four years, the two parties attempt to stage a show between their two candidates. They created their own commission to set it all up, and up until recently the schedule has been to have three debates between the presidential candidates and a single debate between the vice-presidential candidates. However, both sides tend to complain about the format or the rules or all sorts of little details. Republicans are usually especially whiny about the process -- they would prefer all moderators to be from the hard right and all the questions softballs that set up the Republican candidate's preferred campaign talking points. Anything short of that, and Republicans scream: "Liberal media!" as loud as they can. And that's just with normal Republican candidates.
Donald Trump is a whole different problem. In 2020, in the midst of the COVID pandemic, there were only two presidential debates. The first one was almost unintelligible, since Trump simply would not shut up. He talked over the moderator, he talked over Joe Biden, he figured if he just kept yelling he'd automatically win. This was so horrendous that the final debate had to feature a "mute switch" on the candidates' microphones. There was supposed to be a second debate in between these two, but it was cancelled due to Trump having recently contracted COVID (a proposal to hold the debate remotely, with the candidates appearing on screens, was rejected by Trump). Neither debate really changed much of anything, with the public. Both sides declared victory (as usual). The only thing it proved (once again) was that Trump was incapable of following any sort of rules whatsoever.
He's certainly not going to follow any rules this time around, either. He's going to lie his face off, and he will be incensed if anyone challenges him with the actual truth. He will hurl playground insults and he will stoop to gutter-level personal attacks. Anyone who expects anything different from Trump is delusional, it is safe to say.
So what could Joe Biden possibly gain from joining in such a spectacle? If Trump does actually participate in any primary debates, at least the challengers would have something to gain by taking on Trump, but Biden would not. There are very few undecided voters out there who could be convinced to vote for either Biden or Trump just on a debate performance, at this point.
I could see either side refusing to participate in general election debates. I could see Trump not getting the rules he wants or the moderator he wants or the crowd he wants or for any other petty reason that might annoy him. Or perhaps Trump will at that point be so angry with all of the major television networks that he won't appear on any of them. There are a number of scenarios where Trump is in a major snit and won't agree to debate, in fact.
If Trump somehow does get his way (a debate hosted by Newsmax, for instance) then Joe Biden could refuse to participate for the same reason Republicans usually harp on -- the process being biased and totally unfair. Trump, if he is the nominee, can be expected to make all sorts of demands on the debate process. If they don't give him what he wants he may refuse to participate, but then if they do give him what he wants it provides the perfect justification for Biden to refuse to participate.
I have no idea what the chances of any of this happening is, but the debates are part of "the normal process" of electing presidents in this country, and as we've already seen Trump is the ultimate wrecking ball to normal processes in politics. The primary debates will begin on the Republican side in August. But the general election debates are likely at least a year away. That's a lot of time and anything could happen. But in the Trumpian age, you can't take anything for granted in politics. So I seriously wonder whether this time around we'll all get to see anything more than "undercard debates" on the Republican side -- and then nothing more at all.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
In the war between Donald Trump and the fourth estate, he seems to have defeated it soundly. The question to me is whether our country's press can possibly pick itself up off the mat and fight again next time.
Or for that matter, how many of them realize the fight was happening, is over, and might leave their entire establishment permanently paralyzed.
In such situations [as the incumbent president running for re-election], it is typical for the party to forgo any primary debates, which is precisely what the Democrats have announced this time around. There are two other candidates ... -- Marianne Williamson and Robert F. Kennedy Junior ... Biden debating them would be fairly pointless ...
How about RFK Jr. and Marianne Williamson fight it out in a debate and then Biden debates the winner ... it would be fun and Biden could dominate either one and emphasize the points he wants to. Like, for example, why the Republicans are a cult of economic failure. He could pretend he's debating Trump, in other words. And, besides that, what engaged Republican voter wouldn't want to be tuning in to see it! Who cares if any Dem voters watch.
I'm gonna chalk it up to just another missed opportunity.
If Trump does get the nomination, it will be interesting to see how many people in the media and political world will focus on the fact that Trump is running for dictator of America, not president. He's shown that by his staging of the January 6 attempted coup.
If he is elected, and lives to 2028, he's likely to declare himself president for life, and to cancel the election. Long before that, starting with his inauguration in 2025, he will have worked tirelessly to corrupt and subdue the US government to make it his personal instrument for dictatorial-style rule. He's shown that by everything he's said and done since taking office in 2017.
Under those circumstances, who among our public and private officials will be honest enough and/or brave enough to declare that his candidacy is inherently flawed and deserves no respect, attention, or publicity beyond what is required by law - and to hell with the entire Republican Party and whoever else says he's a genuine "nominee" for the office of president and must be treated as such.
Trump is not going to win next year.
Probably not, but wouldn't you just love to see another Trump-Biden debate! Oh man, I can see it now ... Biden flashing that notorious smile of his from ear to ear through most of it, you know, when he's not schooling everyone on the Republican cult of economic failure.
I don't know what it is about that Biden smile but I just can't seem to get enough of it ...
One of my sources says the White House photographer usually says the word “Ukraine” to elicit that Biden winning smile, Elizabeth.
Heh.
That WH photographer will soon have to find some other word to evoke that infamous Biden smile ...
My source wrote a piece today about the counteroffensive, nearly four weeks on:
"...along with big losses in Ukrainian soldiers and US/NATO weaponry, the Ukrainian counteroffensive has yielded, here and there, 130 square kilometers in claimed territorial gains. That’s equivalent to one-fifth of Lake Tahoe, my boyhood vacation spot in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Or one-half of Sacramento, California’s state capital and America’s 35th most populous city. Or three times the size of Berkeley, home to one of my alma maters.
"Or, put another way, nearly four weeks of Ukrainian counteroffensive has liberated cumulative territory that is just about the size of Disney World.
"But, as the theme song goes, “Tomorrow’s just a dream away.” Indeed!
Sorry, Caddy ... in one of my moods, again.
There is a non-zero chance that Trump might be in a prison cell by the time the presidential debates come around, so he'd have a perfect excuse to not attend them.
A non-zero chance, eh? Now, THAT is what's called a classic hedge. :)
Caddy,
I wish to apologize again for that cheap shot above. Sometimes, I just can't help myself. :(
So, I'd like to share with you a CEIP video discussion detailing the view from Kiev and, more specifically, from the office of the Ukrainian president which was conducted just this morning ...
I'll keep the Scott Ritter interview on Real News I stumbled across, ah, off the table, for now. :)
Liz,
I hope your source is not William Bradley as that guy has more red flags than a communist party rally.
Regardless, wait until your source learns about territorial gains and losses during WWI offensives counteroffensives, not to mention casualties. Beyond that do they tell you what was recaptured? 130km of open countryside is no where as impressive and 10km of city/town/village...
Once again, Bashi, I use many, many sources. And, I have been learning about these issues for a long time so I have built up a modicum of enough knowledge to be able to form my own opinions.
But, I'm not clear on what your point is in [14] ... would you mind elaborating?
Biden may send cluster munitions to Ukraine
I'm not sure what message such a decision would send but, to me it says that desperate situations call for desperate measures.
Cluster munitions? Are you kidding me!?
I understand that cluster bombs have already been used by Russia and Ukraine in this war but not extensively. If that changes and cluster munitions become the weapon of choice, then which side has more to worry about, given the stalled state of the current Ukrainian counteroffensive?
Liz,
Your "source" as referenced in [9] is criticizing the territorial gains of the counter offensive without any further information or context. A quick search says that beyond the total area, nine villages were retaken. We, and your "source", don't know the strategy of the Ukrainian forces. Is 130km good? Bad? On plan? Against it? Most of the western press is painting it as slow but showing gains. Your "source" is trying to paint it as a failure which is a take on the story that I only see in the Russian and Russian friendly sources. Sure both sides do propaganda, but from what I have seen, Ukraine is careful that the vast majority of their news releases tie out. Russia, on the other hand is trying to get to Trumpian levels bullshit from Putin all the way down to state controlled news sources.
I strongly suspect that your quote is from William Bradley as UC Berkeley, Sacramento and greater California feature prominently in his bio. Why hide behind "source" when it's pretty obvious where your quote comes from?
Bashi,
Your "source" as referenced in [9] is criticizing the territorial gains of the counter offensive without any further information or context.
That's on me - I am the one who didn't provide you context or more of his latest piece.
By the way, Ukrainian news outlets are now state-controlled, just like in Russia. So, yes, there is propaganda on both sides and there is the fog of war, blah, blah, blah...and the Pentagon!
I thought it was quite obvious by now that when I put quotes around something and refer to "my source", everyone here who's been following along should know precisely who I am quoting. Heh.
It may soon be time to post another one of his missives here in its entirety! :)
Elizabeth, no offense taken. I’m going to check out this guy as I’ve never heard of him. As far as the lack of progress Ukraine is up against built up defenses. Last year’s successes are a tough act to follow but we’re in June not October. So be patient — this was always going to start out slowly.
Okay.