The Strategy Behind the Debates

COMMON SENSE: About the Presidential Debates, will there be one or won’t there be? Is the going back and forth consequential or not? And, most importantly, who has the upper hand?

All of these things, which may seem trivial and petty to you, aren’t. They are consequential, but you have to know what they mean. Let me try and help with that.

First, Kamala called out Trump, demanding that he face her, but he refused. Then, he did the same thing, saying that, because of a conflict of interest, he would debate on FOX but not on ABC. Then, Kamala demanded that he stick with ABC. Trump refused, saying it would be on FOX or not at all.

So, what does all of this mean?

Here’s what I think. By demanding that it be FOX or not at all, Trump has taken a firm position, but why would he do that? It’s for two reasons.

First, his internal poling must indicate that he is winning, maybe winning big. Being in a position of strength, he doesn’t need to debate. He can win without it. She can’t. She must debate him and win, a tall order.

Second, Trump knows, or highly suspects, that FOX will play it straight and not provide Kamala with the questions beforehand. He also knows, or highly suspects, that ABC will not play it straight. Because the latter is so biased against him, he believed ABC will do whatever is necessary to provide Kamala with an advantage. Being in the position of strength, he’s not going to submit to a potentially rigged debate. He doesn’t need to.

So, even though all of the going back-and-forth may seem childish to you, it isn’t. It’s very important but, from what I’ve seen so far, it indicates that Trump is in a commanding position. That’s good news.

—Jack Watts