Vice President Harris accepted CNN’s invitation to host another presidential debate on October 23. President Trump says it is too late for another debate. He is correct, but there is another option.
In issuing the invitation, CNN said:
“Both Vice President Harris and former President Trump received an invitation to participate in a CNN debate this fall as we believe the American people would benefit from a second debate between the two candidates for President of the United States”
The CNN ground rules would be similar to the previous debates — no audience, 90 minutes of questioning by the moderators (essentially making them participants) and the issue of open or closed mics left to further negotiation,
Acceptance by Harris may be less about debating and more about appearance. In agreeing to the CNN debate, Harris would have moderators (actually interrogators) generally unfriendly to Trump. The Harris calculation is to have Trump refuse or have the debate hosted by biased moderators.
Harris is also plays it safe by setting the date less than two weeks before Election (counting) Day — when it is anticipated that most voters will already have cast their ballots. By then, it would be virtually impossible for the debate to have an effect on the outcome of the election without an unlikely dramatic collapse by one of the candidates.
It appears that Harris is merely seeking some level of public image advantage by agreeing to another debate – hoping that a Trump refusal will cast him in a negative light. Team Harris would immediately declare that he was afraid to face her a second time – and they did.
So, what should Trump do?
My recommendation is to not merely to reject the CNN debate, but to offer an alternative. Trump should recommend FOX News as the host. Harris would have to agree or no debate, and that would put Harris in a bad light. She would appear to be afraid of tough questions. No audience and muted mics. There would be one moderator, who would only moderate the rules. No questions or fact checking
Questions would come from two media types – one selected by each campaign. Rather than pretend there is no bias, the questioners would balance the bias. Questioners would only be allowed to ask a question – no speeches, no follow up and no fact checking. The Latter would be left to the candidates and post-debate media commentators.
Each candidate would have a 2-minute response time, with a 1-minute rebuttal by the opponent and a 30 second redirect. The approximately 90 minutes would be divided into three parts — 30 minutes for foreign policy, 40 minutes for domestic issues and 20 minutes for open questions.
The entire 90 minutes would be devoted to debate time only. Introductions, questions, comments by panelists and closing comments by the host would be off the clock. The program would run approximately two hours.
The date should be moved up to October 7 – or a date close to that. There is more than enough time for the candidates to prepare and the network to set up the staging. If one side or the other prolongs the negotiations, there will be no debate.
Having negotiated many major political debates, these rules are not overly complicated, but they would give voters valuable information and insight in terms of issues, policies and personal values. Having said that, I doubt Harris would agree to the terms I have recommended. She is too averse to face hard questions.
Without such a format, there would be no value in the debate CNN proposed and Harris accepted.
So, there ‘tis.