Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are both preparing for a debate scheduled for September 10, under the auspices of ABC News. The debate will no doubt be a spectacle, but recent squabbles over the debate format have added an undercurrent of tension. Various media outlets have reported that the bone of contention centers around whether the candidates’ microphones should be muted when they’re not speaking.
The scenario harks back to the first debate of the 2024 presidential cycle, which was held on June 27 and broadcasted by CNN. During that event, there was a mutual agreement between the Biden and Trump campaigns that the microphones would be muted while the candidates weren’t speaking. But now, Harris’s team, ever eager to change the rules to their benefit, is clamoring for the mics to remain hot throughout the entirety of the ABC News debate.
The Harris camp released a statement, elucidating their reasons. ‘We have communicated to ABC and any other networks with prospects of hosting future debates in October that we are of the opinion that the microphones for both candidates should remain live throughout the full broadcast,’ they stated.
In a rather misguided attempt at a jab, the Harris team added, ‘Our understanding is that Trump’s advisors prefer the silenced microphone because they fear their candidate cannot maintain a presidential demeanor for an unbroken 90 minutes.’ They continued their baseless assumptions by insinuating, ‘We suspect Trump’s team has not even shared this discord with their boss because it would be too embarrassingly obvious they don’t trust him to hold his own against Vice President Harris without the crutch of a mute button.’
The team backing Harris seems to be steadfast in their conviction that if the mics were to remain on at all times, Trump would undoubtedly lose his temper on national television. To them, this possibility is a powerful leverage point, as if they are wishfully awaiting an unscripted debacle instead of focusing on substantive policy discussions.
However, the Trump campaign isn’t falling for these childhood games. In fact, they’ve publicly denounced this strategy. Jason Miller, a Senior Advisor for Trump, stood firm in Politico, dismissing their trickery and saying, ‘Enough with the games.’
He further laid out the stance of the Trump campaign: ‘We accepted the ABC debate under identical terms as those of the CNN debate. The Harris team, despite their earlier compliance to the CNN rules, requested for a seated debate, with notes, and opening statements. We reinforced our position: no changes to the previously accepted rules.’
Miller went on to question Harris’s intellectual capabilities, ‘If Kamala Harris isn’t adept enough to remember the talking points that her advisors want her to recite, that’s an issue for them to address. It’s becoming a trend for the Harris campaign. They prevent Harris from participating in interviews, they stop her from giving press conferences, and now it appears they want to provide her with notes for the debate. It looks like they’re trying to find an escape route from any debate with President Trump.’
Indeed, Harris isn’t the only party displaying a wavering stance when it comes to debating guidelines. Ever since Joe Biden stepped back, Trump too has been vocal about wanting some changes in the rules, specifically his demand for a ‘full arena audience,’ a feature notably absent in the CNN debate due to its closed-door policy.
Though the disagreement over the debate rules seems core to the debate preparation, much of this appears to be diversionary tactics employed by the Harris camp. It’s almost as if these squabbles verge on the ridiculous, distracting from the real issues at hand. As the Harris campaign hammers on the ‘mute button’ issue, one cannot help but wonder the real motive behind it.
If anything, this argument offers a glance into the strategic maneuverings of each campaign. The Harris campaign, with its push for hot microphones, seems more interested in baiting Trump into a miscue, rather than initiating a genuine exchange of ideas. It bears testament to their incessant need to score cheap political points.
On the other hand, the Trump campaign is unyielding in sticking to the agreement at hand. They express a clear and consistent stance, free from the wanton changes requested by the Harris team, thus pointing out the Harris campaign’s shaky approach towards concrete, pre-agreed-upon factors.
The candid revelation brings about the question: Why is the Harris team attempting to shift the debate’s focus from policy analysis and substantive discourse to ‘live microphones’ and potential meltdowns? It seems that they are less focused on their candidate’s ability to argue effectively and more fixated on rattling their opponent. It’s a rather counterproductive ploy for a campaign that ought to be centered on convincing voters about their candidate’s merit.
What this discourse ultimately shines light upon is the fact that Harris’s team seems to be imbued with doubt about their candidate’s competence. They appear to be hyper-cautious and perhaps even over-prepared. One cannot help but wonder whether this shields an underlying apprehension about Harris’s ability to hold her own in a debate without auxiliary aids.
In this game of bait and bluff, the paradoxical attempt made by the Harris camp to appear in control, while seeking additional aids like notes during the debate, stands out starkly. Are they not, inadvertently, highlighting their own candidate’s inadequacy? The rounds of conjecture thrown at Trump seem, in fact, to be boomeranging back at the Harris campaign itself.
As this pre-debate saga unfolds, the viewers are kept in the loop of the petty squabbles of the Harris campaign. But what they’re really interested in are the candidates’ standpoints on salient issues, policies, and visions for the nation. Amidst all this noise, let’s hope that substance isn’t lost to sensationalism.