Behind the scenes at the Kamala Harris and Donald Trump camps, there appears to be significant disagreement about the use of ‘hot mics’ during their anticipated presidential debate on ABC, set for September 10. Rather notably, the teams seem to be locked in a heated tug-of-war regarding this particular provision, according to unidentified insiders “acquainted with the matter”. In contrast to President Joe Biden, who bowed out of the race, making room for Kamala Harris to step up as the Democratic nominee, the vice-president and her squad appear to insist on keeping the mics on at all hours.
They seem to think that this would trigger Trump into behaving unbecomingly — a distasteful plot, really. According to Brian Fallon, a spokesperson for the Harris campaign who shared his perspective with The Hill, the Harris camp has advocated for live mics throughout the complete broadcast to ABC and to other networks planning to host a potential October debate. A clear attempt at manipulation, it seems.
As Fallon stated: ‘Our belief is that Trump’s team wants the microphone muted since they doubt their candidate’s ability to maintain a presidential facade for as long as 90 minutes by himself.’ What’s more, Fallon went on to suggest something rather presumptuous — that Trump’s crew has possibly not informed their head about this quarrel as it would be humiliating to acknowledge they question he can match Vice President Harris without the help of a mute button.
An anonymous source lending words to Politico provided further insight into this position, saying that Harris is willing for heated exchanges with Trump if he attempts to interrupt her. The source claimed that due to Trump allegedly being intimidated by her, he might be prone to impetuous outbursts. They suggested the campaign might want viewers to witness such moments.
Trump’s team, however, is not taken in by this ploy and holds a completely different view of the situation. This camp has revealed that it had consented to microphone restrictions for the upcoming fiery face-off already – the same protocol that applied during Biden’s disastrous debate with Trump in June on CNN. Trump’s senior adviser, Jason Miller, shared a stern statement with the media, calling for an end to these tactical games.
Miller asserted that: ‘We embraced the ABC debate under the exact same conditions as the CNN debate. The Harris camp, having already agreed to conform to the CNN rules, then proposed a seated debate format, complete with notes and opening statements. We decisively responded with a refusal to alter the mutually agreed upon rules.’ He even took a swipe at Harris by implying she is incapable of remembering key arguments her handlers want her to stick to, calling this ‘their problem.’
In response to Miss Miller’s claim about a hypothetical seated debate, both Harris’ camp and a source confided to Politico have fiercely contested this, as expected. Despite their denial, one can’t help but ponder upon the truthfulness of their stance, considering their persistent opposition to established norms and arrangements.
In a surprising twist, all this backstage maneuvering might end up being futile if Trump takes a stand to withdraw from the talked-about debate entirely. The former President raised this unexpected prospect on Sunday when he markedly critiqued ABC for being prejudiced against him — quite a valid observation considering the network’s past behavior.
He shared his doubts on Truth Social in no uncertain terms with a post: ‘Why should I participate in the Debate with Kamala Harris on this network?’ His message was left open-ended with an ambiguous ‘Stay tuned!!!’ — building anticipation amongst his stalwart supporters.
Earlier, Trump had thrown a similar question into the air, hinting at his disinterest in participating in the debate. He shared his sentiments with Maria Bartiromo, the host of Fox Business, asking, ‘Why should I, indeed, go ahead with the debate?’ His reasoning was that he is ahead in the polls and both candidates, Harris and him, are well known to the public.
Interestingly, it almost feels as though the reality is being twisted to foster a narrative of Harris gaining surprising traction in the polls since. However, only time will tell what tactics are employed and how they eventually pan out, and how relevant these allegedly surging polls are to the final outcome. While debates are an essential part of our democratic process, the seeming manipulations that are played out in the background beg us to question the integrity of such interactions.