I think this is short sighted of Trump. He needs to accept a 3rd debate and set the terms.

Quote:

---

Donald Trump Says He Won't Do Another Debate With Kamala Harris

Former president rules out another face-off following Philadelphia debate that left Republicans concerned about his performance

Donald Trump appeared to definitely rule out another debate with Kamala Harris, a day after sending mixed signals following their clash in Philadelphia.

"Kamala should focus on what she should have done during the last almost four year period," Trump wrote Thursday, in all caps, on social media. "There will be no third debate!"

Trump claimed he won the Tuesday debate with the vice president, through she was widely seen as having the better night. "When a prizefighter loses a fight, the first words out of his mouth are, "I WANT A REMATCH," he wrote.

Asked if Trump was in fact ruling out a debate, a spokeswoman said in an email, "You heard the man!"

Harris, meanwhile, again called for the candidates to meet one more time. "I believe we owe it to the voters to have another debate," she said at a rally in Charlotte, N.C. Thursdayminutes after Trump's announcement.

---

https://www.wsj.com/politics/elections/donald-trump-says-he-wont-do-another-debate-with-kamala-harris-c7d8e428?mod=breakingnews

He'll be the coward from here on….

He would never be given a chance to set the terms.

"...set the terms".
Are you new?

He already proposed 3. She accepted 1. So be it.

Ag13 said:

---

He would never be given a chance to set the terms.

---

His response to Kamala's offer of another debate should have proposed the terms. The WSJ reached out to his campaign, and they could have offered terms. What do you mean, he wouldn't be given a chance?

This could be something that he can't scratch his way back from. Touting yourself as a fighter for the common man, then ducking a debate, albeit stacked against him, is far past petty.
Personally, if he runs away from a subsequent debate, he should throw in the towel

It would be a waste of everyone's time. Everyone knows what they getting with both candidates. There are no undecided voters.

Didn't Kamala originally say she didn't want to debate again and pulled out of Fox debate?

Dumb.

Smart move by Trump

backintexas2013 said:

---

Didn't Kamala originally say she didn't want to debate again and pulled out of Fox debate?

---

Yes, but then said they want another debate next month.

He has nothing to gain from another rigged debate.

He slightly won this last one IMO. It was essentially a draw. Both sides will claim they won. At the very lest neither side can claim they destroyed the other side. Not honestly anyways.

No need for another debate.

Kamala already rejected future debates, she only agreed to one.

Did Kamala ask for another debate?

Aah, i see the answer above.

deddog said:

---

Kamala already rejected future debates, she only agreed to one.

Did Kamala ask for another debate?

---

Yes, right after the first one.

So basically Trump looks like a coward because he got cooked in that debate. I'm on the fence if another debate would be a good idea for Trump anyway. You don't want an even worse image of him that close to the election. People will soon forget about how bad he was in this debate.

So now she wants one but first didn't. So she wants a do-over?

He should set his own terms, on Fox News.
Otherwise she can GTFO

For now he should tentatively agree to another one for sometime in late October without ever actually having the intention of going through with it. This negates Harris the chance of spending the next six weeks of calling him a coward. Then spend the next six weeks insisting on debate protocols that are so favorable to him that the Harris camp would never agree to them. Then he forces their hand to back out and he can start accusing her of cowardice. If on the off chance they do agree he has a debate that is so in his favor, built upon the protocols he's insisted upon, that the chance of damage is minimal to none.

backintexas2013 said:

---

So now she wants one but first didn't. So she wants a do-over?

---

Its not like she's campaigning or being VP or anything.
She'll pretty much spend all her time practicing.

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

For now he should tentatively agree to another one for sometime in late October without ever actually having the intention of going through with it. This negates Harris the chance of spending the next six weeks of calling him a coward. Then spend the next six weeks insisting on debate protocols that are so favorable to him that the Harris camp would never agree to them. Then he forces their hand to back out and he can start accusing her of cowardice. If on the off chance they do agree he has a debate that is so in his favor, built upon the protocols he's insisted upon, that the chance of damage is minimal to none.

---

That would make the most sense.
So no, he won't do it

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

For now he should tentatively agree to another one for sometime in late October without ever actually having the intention of going through with it. This negates Harris the chance of spending the next six weeks of calling him a coward. Then spend the next six weeks insisting on debate protocols that are so favorable to him that the Harris camp would never agree to them. Then he forces their hand to back out and he can start accusing her of cowardice. If on the off chance they do agree he has a debate that is so in his favor, built upon the protocols he's insisted upon, that the chance of damage is minimal to none.

---

Correct. This is what an intelligent campaign would look like.

Yeah what an idiot for wanting to debate Harris and the moderators

deddog said:

---

He should set his own terms, on Fox News.
Otherwise she can GTFO

---

Let Levin be the moderator.

He needs to accept a 3rd debate ONLY if he can set the terms.

He should have never agreed to any debates. Yeah he wiped the floor with peepaw in a surprisingly fair debate format, but I am growing more convinced that that was designed for peepaw to lose. An outlier.

It's just almost never a fair fight for ANY republican in these things, but especially Trump. More risk than reward.

There's no reason to do another debate with another far left media outlet who won't fact check Kamala.

The next debate should be Newsmax or just forget it.

WHAT??

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

Ag13 said:

---

He would never be given a chance to set the terms.

---

His response to Kamala's offer of another debate should have proposed the terms. The WSJ reached out to his campaign, and they could have offered terms. What do you mean, he wouldn't be given a chance?

---

If he were to respond with terms, anything he offers up as a requisite to debate would be shouted down from Kamala and literally all of her media surrogates as unfair. Then when Trump is unwilling to change his ask and "meet in the middle" he would be accused of being a coward or loser or whatever despite Kamala being the one that would be demonstrating an unwillingness to debate.

Way easier to just skip all that and get to the inevitable end result and keep campaigning where it matters.

And just for a thought experiment - One of Trump's terms would likely be that the debate needs to be on Fox News with moderators that he picks. How do you think the Kamala camp would respond to that?

He should have hid from the first debate

Should say he will only do one with Dave Smith or Joe Rogan (or someone along those lines) as the moderator. Let her publicly decline.

They would ask WAY better questions anyways.

Ok, fine. Once again though if he loses it is on him.

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

For now he should tentatively agree to another one for sometime in late October without ever actually having the intention of going through with it. This negates Harris the chance of spending the next six weeks of calling him a coward. Then spend the next six weeks insisting on debate protocols that are so favorable to him that the Harris camp would never agree to them. Then he forces their hand to back out and he can start accusing her of cowardice. If on the off chance they do agree he has a debate that is so in his favor, built upon the protocols he's insisted upon, that the chance of damage is minimal to none.

---

Correct. This is what an intelligent campaign would look like.

---

Thanks for the edits. Succinctness is not my strong suit.

Ag13 said:

---

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

Ag13 said:

---

He would never be given a chance to set the terms.

---

His response to Kamala's offer of another debate should have proposed the terms. The WSJ reached out to his campaign, and they could have offered terms. What do you mean, he wouldn't be given a chance?

---

If he were to respond with terms, anything he offers up as a requisite to debate would be shouted down from Kamala and literally all of her media surrogates as unfair. Then when Trump is unwilling to change his ask and "meet in the middle" he would be accused of being a coward or loser or whatever despite Kamala being the one that would be demonstrating an unwillingness to debate.

Way easier to just skip all that and get to the inevitable end result and keep campaigning where it matters.

And just for a thought experiment - One of Trump's terms would likely be that the debate needs to be on Fox News with moderators that he picks. How do you think the Kamala camp would respond to that?

---

So what? If in your view, either route results in no more debates, then only a bonehead would choose the option that make him look cowardly.