Former President Donald Trump’s decision to skip another debate before the November 5 presidential election might be more advantageous to Vice President Kamala Harris than initially expected, according to political analysts.
In a recent post on Truth Social, Trump announced that he would not participate in another debate with Harris, just days after their initial encounter on ABC News. The debate, which covered critical topics like the economy, immigration, and abortion, saw Harris perceived as the winner, largely due to her successful attempts to rattle Trump with remarks about his legal troubles and campaign rally sizes.
Following the debate, the Harris campaign quickly demanded a second debate. While some polls suggest that Harris has gained ground over Trump since their first debate, analysts believe Trump’s refusal to engage in another debate could further benefit Harris.
Aaron Kall, director of the University of Michigan’s debate program, pointed out that Trump’s decision to forgo a second debate might be playing into Harris’s hands. According to Kall, Harris would likely appear strong and presidential by pushing for another debate that Trump avoids. This scenario not only reinforces her debating prowess but also casts Trump as avoiding confrontation, contrary to his reputation for strength.
However, Kall also noted that Harris might struggle to replicate her successful strategy from the first debate, and preparing for another debate could divert her focus from crucial battleground states and voter engagement. A second debate could impose logistical challenges on Harris, who would have to balance preparation with campaigning.
Tatishe Nteta, a professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, argued that not having a second debate could be advantageous for both candidates. For Trump, avoiding another debate minimizes the risk of further embarrassment and avoids elevating Harris’s perceived capabilities. Conversely, Harris faces the risk of not meeting heightened expectations if a second debate were to expose weaknesses in her policy details or debating style.
Grant Davis Reeher, a professor of political science at Syracuse University, echoed these sentiments. He suggested that Trump could use a potential second debate to focus on Harris’s policy inconsistencies and her alignment with the more liberal wing of her party, potentially turning the debate to his advantage. Reeher also noted that a second debate might offer Harris more intense scrutiny from moderators, which could challenge her to provide specific answers about her policies.
As the election approaches, it appears that Harris will continue to campaign vigorously in key swing states and increase her media presence. Despite the lack of a second debate, she will need to adapt her strategy to maintain momentum. In contrast, Trump’s approach may involve self-assessment and recalibration to address any weaknesses highlighted in the first debate.
Historically, presidential candidates typically participate in three debates, though some election cycles have seen fewer. The 2024 cycle could be unique if it remains limited to a single debate. If a second debate does not materialize, it would echo the 1996 election when only two debates were held between President Bill Clinton and Bob Dole.
In any case, the debate dynamics between Trump and Harris will likely shape their respective strategies in the coming weeks, as both candidates navigate the path to November’s election.