For the first post since I’ve re-engaged with writing my thoughts and predictions down as opposed to just voicing them and hoping people will remember them later, I have some analysis and predictions regarding the 2024 Presidential Debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump.
In short, I think there is a relatively high probability that ABC News will, at some point during the debate, unmute both candidates’ microphones and allow direct crosstalk and interactions between the two candidates.
If you don’t believe me, then consider that it’s now been reported that the ABC News has given assurances to the Harris campaign that, if Trump begins speaking over Harris, or, in their words, “significant cross talk is occurring”, ABC News will unmute the microphones so the viewers can follow what’s being said.
Accordingly, I have a relatively longwinded explanation that is based upon analysis, strategy and modeling the different interests of the parties involved, which follows here.
Where most pundits and analysts are naturally coming at this topic from a highly political and inherently biased (and therefore, arguably, less than useful) point of view, I tend to approach these highly partisan topics from a “devil’s advocate” point of view, that is, taking each person’s side from exactly the most opposite point of view as what would be expected from a pure partisan against that candidate. So, I will attempt to be as friendly to Trump with the analysis of his strategy as I will attempt to be friendly towards Harris.
But for the purposes of this discussion in particular, the primary focus I have is on the strategy, rules, and where most viewers remain in the dark, and that is the machinations in the media designed to generate controversy and therefore ratings.
In a future article, I will discuss the transition of sports from athletic contests to reality TV, but here, I will simply posit what I consider to be axiomatic – in an ongoing saga since cable news and the twenty four news cycle, politics has become more and more dramatic, and is approaching being indistinguishable from reality television.
Initial discussions of the rules included what appeared to be significant back-and-forth between ABC News, the Harris campaign, and the Trump campaign regarding the rules and format, with a focus on microphones muted vs unmuted.
The initial debate between Trump and Biden featured muted mics, and it can reasonably be argued that such an arrangement benefitted Trump and was problematic for Biden. Specifically, it forced Trump to avoid what has often been an achilles heel for him, and that is his habit of interrupting opposing debaters during their speaking time, and saying things quickly without being forced to consider how it may or may not be received. For Biden, it forced him to fill the full allotted time with well formulated statements, which were difficult either due to illness, lack of preparation, mental acuity, or an expectation of being interrupted. Biden had always been a bit more of a casual speaker (as opposed to, say, a highly polished orator akin to former President Barack Obama). Needless to say, the debate featured enough issues for Biden that he withdrew from the race shortly after.
Leading us to the current conundrum for the Harris campaign. Trump often becomes less palatable to the average American voter with his tendency to talk over opposing debaters and making questionable statements quickly as a reaction. While this off-the-cuff speaking style often benefits him during rallies, as he navigates crowd enthusiasm and tailors a message to drive support, it is significantly less effective during debates at the presidential level, where a modicum of civility was the historical norm. (Note, partisan actors will argue that Trump’s rally speaking style is nonsensical and unhinged rambling. I am not here to entertain such arguments per the policy on analyzing based on points of view. Your own personal views of Trump are just that, your own, whereas I analyze based upon how Trump’s rally audience receives him.)
If Trump is forced to remain quiet during Harris’ speaking time, it helps act as a guardrail for him against unforced errors. It also forces Harris to fill her time specifically, where many Americans are likely hoping to hear more policy specifics than simply vibes, which may raise questions from independents, but most importantly, it has been a general consensus that one of Harris’ best debate moments was against former Vice President Mike Pence, where she stated “Sir, I’m speaking.” This simple yet effective statement of poise and self-assertion helped build her image as a confident and strong leader. (Note again, partisan actors will argue whether or not she is a confident and strong leader, and again, per my policy on political analysis, I’m not here to deal with that argument, but simply to assess how various viewers in the American public perceived this statement and whether or not her campaign viewed it as a success, which clearly they did believe the public received this impression.)
Leading me to the ultimate reality TV strategy and prediction, which is, specifically, it is not in ABC News’ best interest to have a by-the-book bland and boring debate. Given that TV is entertainment, entertainment is driven by ratings, and politics has become akin to reality TV, it would make sense that, from a network executive perspective, some drama will make this debate talked about. So added drama from, say, cross talk and shouting matches, might just be in the favorable ratings cards.
Naturally, this creates a significant hazard for Trump. If you’re Kamala Harris, you have very little to lose by interjecting over Trump during his speaking time, if you can get him to take the bait. After all, the viewing public generally does not consider you to be a crass and boorish individual who rudely interrupts opponents – such attacks are primarily leveled against Trump. So if Harris begins talking over Trump or making interjections during his time, it will be specifically to bait Trump into repeating the exchange during Harris’ allotted time. If this occurs, ABC News will likely unmute the microphones promptly, resulting in the debate devolving into a toxic shouting match and hurting Trump’s image more than Harris (at least, in my mock debates simulating this event).
After all, debates are as much about making your own effective arguments and points of view as they are about throwing your opponent off of their gameplan and forcing them into making mistakes, focusing on irrelevant topics, and preventing them from making their own effective arguments. One needs to only watch the movie 8 Mile and the final rap battle between B-Rabbit and Papa Doc where B-Rabbit preempts the potential attacks from Papa Doc and wins the freestyle battle by default, simply due to Papa Doc’s inability to come up with anything to say.
The irony is, that if Harris employs such a tactic, and Trump manages to point it out, without responding in a way that causes the unmuting of mics and the devolution of the debate, it would play into the largest attack avenue against Harris (one, by the way, that Tulsi Gabbard employed very successfully against Kamala Harris in the 2020 primaries – that Harris is a hypocrite). It would not look good for Harris for her previous debate performance to consist of “Sir, I’m speaking.” and then immediately follow that up with being the rude participant interrupting her opponent for no reason. That is, of course, unless Trump takes the bait.
At the risk of being accused of being a partisan myself, I would personally posit that based upon media coverage to this point, it seems the media has a favorable view of Harris and less than favorable of Trump. While I’d like to think that we can all hold this to be a self-evident truth, history has taught me that nothing can be taken for granted, so I will simply defer to articles in USA Today and The Economic Times that indicate this.
If we follow this line of thinking, and the emphasis that media & entertainment place upon ratings, it can also be reasonably predicted that, should this specific chain of events come to pass, ABC News’ display of the sequence of events is perhaps more likely to be done in a manner favorable to Harris. In the realm of prognostication, I would suggest that if and when Harris is interrupting Trump, the TV screen will be fullscreen on Trump, and if Trump responds with his own interruptions during Harris’ time, ABC News may be likely to display that in split screen so as to make sure that Trump is visible during his interruptions. This would not only increase the likelihood of drama and therefore higher ratings, but would also insulate Harris if she attempts to bait Trump but he doesn’t respond to it. Trump would be therefore very wise to have a plan to respond to potential interjections in a manner that draws attention to them, without verbally responding.
We can’t be certain of any outcomes in this debate, and this has clearly been an election season unlike any other for a variety of reasons, but I can see the aligned incentives between ABC News and the Harris campaign and debate strategy. Specifically, the Harris campaign would benefit from unmuted mics more than Trump likely would, and ABC News’ ratings for the debate (and post-debate analysis) would certainly benefit from unmuted mics and the ensuing drama.