5 Reasons Trump Is Making the Right Strategic Choice to Not Debate Again

Putting policy aside in favor of nitpicky tactics of trying to modify every last detail so the opposing airhead candidate has her best chance to deliver some type of catchphrase, or polish on her flip flops, is simply not something Republicans need to put up with again.

.

Strategically, the Trump campaign is making the right decision by saying there will not be a third debate.

It could be strategy to get terms he wants for another debate, but I’m hoping it is what it appears to be on its face, closing the book on further debates.

Trump didn’t “win” the second debate, but that’s not why he’s not agreeing to another debate.

A lot of people are going to write this off as Trump being scared to debate Kamala Harris, but  we all know that’s not the case.

This is the right move, likely being made for multiple strategic reasons which I want to explain.

.

First, let’s not forget that Kamala Harris has had ample opportunity to agree to another debate already but has chosen not to do so.

.

She declined offers from networks like NBC and Fox in advance of the first debate and only brought up the idea of another debate after the last one.

Her lack of courage and indecision in not agreeing to another debate should rightfully come back to bite her in the ass.

Harris wants another bite at the apple ,because she didn’t do as badly as everybody thought she would, and now she can’t have it because she didn’t believe in herself enough to agree to terms ahead of time.

Tough rocks for her.

Second, not doing a debate pigeonholes Harris to the poor policy explanations and reasoning she put forth in the last debate. 

.

The entire world watched both candidates this week, and though Harris may have performed better artistically, she came up short on policy prescriptions, and details on her plans for crucial issues like the economy and immigration.

She offered lots of platitudes, and feel-good statements

This was reflected in several post-debate interviews, including ones from Reuters and CNN, where independent voters were not swayed to her side.

She was given a chance to talk policy.

However, her handlers thought it would be far more useful to take jabs at Donald Trump instead.

As I noted the night of the debate, this may have been a short-term success, but as the hours turn to days after the last debate, and independent-minded critical thinkers start looking for more substance, it’s going to backfire.

.

.

Making faces like it’s a high school theater improv class doesn’t count as policy

.

Third, Harris’s team was asking for provisions and rule changes up to the very last minute of the debate. .

Putting aside the fact, Trump already did another debate with an entirely different candidate before knocking him out of the race, after agreeing to the rules set by the Democratic Party, Harris tried to change the rules of the ABC debate all the way up until the last minute, asking for mics to be live on the day of.

As I’ve commented before, Democrat handlers are obsessed with micromanaging every last detail of these debates and their candidate, because they lack significant substance on policy.

Harris’ appearance was more of a successful public relations event, than it was an opportunity to explain her policy positions to the American people.

Trump, so far, has done two debates on enemy territory, CNN and ABC, and has not been shy about taking interviews or holding press conferences throughout his entire campaign.

.

Fourth, the next debate will be the vice presidential debate, and JD Vance is far more articulate in explaining policy positions than Donald Trump. 

.

If policy is going to rule the day, I’m certain Vance will out-joust Tim Walz.

I’m basing this on watching both of their media appearances over the last month or so and common-sense policy prescriptions, most Americans in the middle are looking for.

Not having another presidential debate shows the Republicans’ confidence in JD Vance

He’s going to do a significantly better job than Trump.

It’ll make the vice presidential debate the official sendoff for both sides heading into the general election.

Tim Walz can brush up on how best to spin his way through sounding like his administration actually has policy ideas, but I’m not sure there’s anything he can do to keep pace with Vance in a debate.

Finally, biased news networks don’t deserve the ratings of another debate, or the trust of the American people, whether Democrats know it or not. 

.

The previous debate was so blindingly biased towards Harris, both in the lines of questioning and in how the moderators interjected on her behalf, that biased network news, in general, doesn’t deserve to be trusted with "managing" another debate.

Megyn Kelly said it best in her post-debate analysis when she stated, Republicans should never ever agree to another debate after what took place this week.

As I’ve noted, the American public will see the objective truth:  this was an ambush on Donald Trump and not an objective forum for two candidates to debate each other on the merits.

The biased mainstream media simply cannot be trusted to hold court on political discussions without injecting their biases and self-interests into them; it’s that simple.

Looking back now, I think CNN conducted their debate in a surprisingly fair fashion, because it wanted Joe Biden out of the race.

With him out of the way, they were free to do everything they could to protect their candidate, Kamala Harris.

.

By Trump stepping away from another debate, it’s going to embolden his base, and it’s also going to embolden Harris’.

Harris’s camp will claim that he’s too scared to do another one, while Trump’s camp will wonder why he ever agreed to do a debate on ABC to begin with.

The excuse Trump is using about a prizefighter knocking somebody out and their opponent immediately demanding a rematch may be true.

Harris is asking for another debate, because she thinks she won.

BREAKING WHISTLE BLOWER REPORT:

Mark Penn, a former senior adviser to Clinton, has called for an internal investigation into ABC, accusing them of rigging the debate against Trump.

“I will be releasing an affidavit from an ABC whistleblower regarding the debate.

I have just signed a non-disclosure agreement with the attorney of the whistleblower.

The affidavit states how the Harris campaign was given sample questions which were essentially the same questions that were given during the debate and separate assurances of fact checking Donald Trump and that she would NOT be fact checked.

Accordingly, the affidavit states several other factors that were built into the debate to give Kamala a significant advantage.

I have seen and read the affidavit and after the attorney blacks out the name of the whistleblower and other information that could dox the whistleblower, I will release the full affidavit.

I will be releasing the affidavit before the weekend is out.”

CATS ON THE GRILL IN OHIO