Why is Trump afraid to debate?

[mystery-ak]

 washingtonexaminer.com
Why is Trump afraid to debate?
Washington Examiner
~4 minutes

Former President Donald Trump is unarguably the man to beat in the race for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. Beyond that, he is the 900-pound gorilla of Republican politics, capable with his endorsement of changing primary outcomes — even or particularly if giving nominations to poor candidates.

He also has the brass to declare that he will continue his candidacy even in the unlikely event that he is found guilty of any of the 34 felony charges he faces in New York.

Given such a show of confidence, why is Trump afraid to debate his Republican opponents for the presidency?

There is nothing deeper than cowardice behind a tirade Trump poured on to Truth Social yesterday about the primary debate process:

more
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/why-is-trump-afraid-to-debate

[catfish1957]

Another Briefer thought this topic was a waste of cyber space. 

I think it needs resolution, or we give Trump to much leverage in '24.

[Kamaji]

Good question.

[Bigun]

Another Briefer thought this topic was a waste of cyber space. 

I think it needs resolution, or we give Trump to much leverage in '24.

That same Briefer (Me) thinks the headline of this piece is a load of bovine fecal matter! Willingness to debate and willingness to participate in known GOTCHA sessions are NOT the same thing.

[Right_in_Virginia]

That same Briefer (Me) thinks the headline of this piece is a load of bovine fecal matter! Willingness to debate and willingness to participate in known GOTCHA sessions are NOT the same thing.

 

[catfish1957]

That same Briefer (Me) thinks the headline of this piece is a load of bovine fecal matter! Willingness to debate and willingness to participate in known GOTCHA sessions are NOT the same thing.

Fair enough....  If Trump is such a great strategic businessman and visionary multi-dimensional chess meister, why hasn't he worked out the details of the primary debates in advance?  How long has he been a declared candidate?  I'll tell you...  5 months and 11 days.

In this response he is coming across as flabbergasted and flat-footed.  If he had been proactive, he'd already had worked out the pre-details of any debates.  He might not be as good of a manager as he makes himself out to be.

[Bigun]

Fair enough....  If Trump is such a great strategic businessman and visionary multi-dimensional chess meister, why hasn't he worked out the details of the primary debates in advance?  How long has he been a declared candidate?  I'll tell you...  5 months and 11 days.

In this response he is coming across as flabbergasted and flat-footed.  If he had been proactive, he'd already had worked out the pre-details of any debates.  He might not be as good of a manager as he makes himself out to be.

So, you think Trump has the power to dictate to the media masters?  I don't think so. But I'm just an East Texas country boy.

[Kamaji]

So, you think Trump has the power to dictate to the media masters?  I don't think so. But I'm just an East Texas country boy.

These are RNC primary debates, and anybody who was an actual leader would be able to influence his own primary debates.

That complaint is simply one more implicit concession that Trump is not, in fact, a real leader.  Which begs the question, why vote for someone who cannot lead?

[catfish1957]

So, you think Trump has the power to dictate to the media masters?  I don't think so. But I'm just an East Texas country boy.

Same here.  Honestly, anyone who has a 30-40 point poll lead holds all the cards.  In fact he should be able to dictate every aspect of it, down to the most minute detail.  If Trump had properly prepared, all of these details would have been established, and he would be telling Fox, NewsMax, OANN, etc. how, and where this would be conducted.  Instead, he is looking terribly flatfooted and unprepared.

Trump's earned that right by being the candidate the past two POTUS cycles. So I just don't get why he is playing this game.

[Bigun]

These are RNC primary debates, and anybody who was an actual leader would be able to influence his own primary debates.

That complaint is simply one more implicit concession that Trump is not, in fact, a real leader.  Which begs the question, why vote for someone who cannot lead?

Unless it's Donald J. Trump. In his case ALL bets are off. (The establishment fear is palpable.)

[Kamaji]

Unless it's Donald J. Trump. In his case ALL bets are off. (The establishment fear is palpable.)

Maybe that's just because Donald J. Trump is not a real leader.  Which begs the question:  why should people vote for someone who cannot actually lead?

[catfish1957]

Maybe that's just because Donald J. Trump is not a real leader.  Which begs the question:  why should people vote for someone who cannot actually lead?

Which is why I mentioned earlier that I am shocked that Trump has come across so blindsided on this matter.  He's had almost 6 months to think about it

[Bigun]

Maybe that's just because Donald J. Trump is not a real leader.  Which begs the question:  why should people vote for someone who cannot actually lead?

I'm definitely not settled on voting for Trump but fair debates are a wholly different matter. I am settled on that.

[catfish1957]

I'm definitely not settled on voting for Trump but fair debates are a wholly different matter. I am settled on that.

Same here.  I really want to see these 2 on the big stage.  It will especially clue us in, on whether RDS is the future of the party.

Right now, outside a historic collapse, I don't see how DJT can blow it.  I've parsed through 40 years of pre- primary polling, and no one has blown a lead like this at this point.  If it is truly a 40% lead as Trump claims.

[bigheadfred]

Maybe that's just because Donald J. Trump is not a real leader.  Which begs the question:  why should people vote for someone who cannot actually lead?

Well, they don't have to vote anymore.  We could have a general election now in which no person actually votes.  But total vote count could be +/- 150 million.

[Bigun]

Well, they don't have to vote anymore.  We could have a general election now in which no person actually votes.  But total vote count could be +/- 150 million.

Yeah! There is that!

[Maj. Bill Martin]

So, you think Trump has the power to dictate to the media masters?  I don't think so. But I'm just an East Texas country boy.

But these RNC debates don't involve any "dictating to media masters.". The moderators and format are established by the Republican National Committee, the chairwoman of which is a Trump ally.

Feels like the next thing to expect from Trump is a hunt for the missing strawberries.

[roamer_1]

That same Briefer (Me) thinks the headline of this piece is a load of bovine fecal matter! Willingness to debate and willingness to participate in known GOTCHA sessions are NOT the same thing.

What's the other side of that though @Bigun ? A press that throws softballs to the candidates? What does that decide?

I get your argument - And I agree in part. But one would hope, even with a fair-and-balanced real journalism, the candidates should exit with a sore hiney.

And in such a condition, whiners walk, right?

So how do you construct *THAT* with a guarantee?

[roamer_1]

But these RNC debates don't involve any "dictating to media masters.". The moderators and format are established by the Republican National Committee, the chairwoman of which is a Trump ally.

Feels like the next thing to expect from Trump is a hunt for the missing strawberries.

That is an excellent point!

[Maj. Bill Martin]

What's the other side of that though @Bigun ? A press that throws softballs to the candidates? What does that decide?

I get your argument - And I agree in part. But one would hope, even with a fair-and-balanced real journalism, the candidates should exit with a sore hiney.

And in such a condition, whiners walk, right?

So how do you construct *THAT* with a guarantee?

There are some pretty easy ways to do that with a 1 on 1 debate.  Essentially, you set it up like a trial, with each client having their representatives question both themselves and the other side.  You eliminate the problem of unfair bias by building deliberate and equal bias into the system.

[LMAO]

Because he would have to defend his record debt and COVID response plus his current wish list and it’s cost and practicality

[catfish1957]

Because he would have to defend his record debt and COVID response plus his current wish list and it’s cost and practicality

Like it or not, he's married to Fauxci and his record. 

[roamer_1]

There are some pretty easy ways to do that with a 1 on 1 debate.  Essentially, you set it up like a trial, with each client having their representatives question both themselves and the other side.  You eliminate the problem of unfair bias by building deliberate and equal bias into the system.

Sure - Fireplace debates - That's why I gravitate toward 'Intellectual Dark Web' styled debates.

But presidential debates are generally not that - More often a stylized formal forum debate with moderation... Outside of an agreed moderation, and reasonable decorum, what else can be done?

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Sure - Fireplace debates - That's why I gravitate toward 'Intellectual Dark Web' styled debates.

But presidential debates are generally not that - More often a stylized formal forum debate with moderation... Outside of an agreed moderation, and reasonable decorum, what else can be done?

Panel of three moderators.   One agreed upon, one selected by each side.   Pretty simple.

[roamer_1]

Panel of three moderators.   One agreed upon, one selected by each side.   Pretty simple.

... Which is often the case... at least in the (two or) three moderators. How they are determined may not be that cut and dried.