Yesterday, Donald Trump told supporters at a rally in North Carolina he won't debate Kamala Harris a second time on Oct. 23rd because, "It's too late -- voting has started already." Yes, it's true millions of votes will be cast by then, but millions more will be recorded on election day Nov. 5th.
I don't know if early voting was happening in 1984, when Ronald Reagan and Walter Mondale debated for a second time on Oct. 21st, or in 2012, when Barack Obama and Mitt Romney debated for a 3rd time on Oct. 22nd, but Trump's decision to decline a second debate with Harris seems sketchy, at best, to me. Why? Because if you apply the former president's logic to the upcoming Tim Walz-JD Vance debate on Oct. 1st, then it shouldn't happen either.
I don't think there is a law that requires presidential debates, but I do believe they are extremely important. Notice I said debates (plural). This year's race for the White House is basically a dead heat now. In my opinion, a second debate between Trump and Harris would be a good thing for the nation, no matter how late in October it takes place.
-DF
Trump would be a fool to debate Kamala again. He got thorougly trounced the last time by pretty much everyone's reckoning (even his own, apparently) although he would never admit it. He may not be my idea of a good president - or even a good human being - but he's no fool when iy comes to reading the room. And he knows that debate stage is one room too far.
His only hope is to stand and slander, act like an angry 3rd grader, and lie so loudly and often no one has time to contest his falsehoods. He knows he will not likely attract new voters, so he will exhort his staff of lawyers to sue states and encourage local politicians to change the rules on who can vote and how the votes are counted. And then use the confusion caused by those tactics to claim fraud and delay results and, hopefully, throw the election to the House, which might give him the edge, depending on whether the House remains majority Republican or the Dems take charge.