Maybe/maybe not ~ DT is already howling at the schedule ... 2 [of 3] debates apparently conflict with pro football games ~ DT's reaction? ~ the Dems rigged the schedule ~ ~ we should start a VoC pool on whether he'll wimp out ~

Sooz

I'm silently chanting "I love Bruce, I love Bruce" here ~ ~ Sooz

Reality is that the debate dates were scheduled LAST SEPTEMBER, long before any 2016-17 football games were scheduled ~ DT is simply incapable of telling the truth ... about anything ... EVER ~ ~ but the NFL is quick to correct DT's blatant lie ~ Sooz

Trump: NFL sent me a letter railing against ‘ridiculous’ debate schedule — NFL says they didn’t
Bethania Palma Markus / 30 Jul 2016 at 18:14 ET

GOP nominee Donald Trump said in an interview on Saturday with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos that he got a letter from the National Football League saying they were unhappy that upcoming presidential debates conflicted with scheduled game broadcasts — but the NFL has denied sending Trump any such letter.

Trump was responding to Stephanopoulos’ question on Saturday about whether he’d accept the three-debate schedule proposed by the Commission on Presidential Debates.

“Well, I’ll tell you what I don’t like,” Trump responded. “It’s against two NFL games. I got a letter from the NFL saying, ‘this is ridiculous, why are the debates against — because the NFL doesn’t want to go against the debates because the debates are gonna be pretty massive, from what I understand, OK. And I don’t think we should be against the NFL. I don’t know how the dates were picked.”

Stephanopoulos asked if he were against the dates picked.

“Hillary Clinton wants to be against the NFL,” Trump said. “Maybe like she did with Bernie Sanders where they were on Saturday nights when nobody’s home.”

A spokesman for the NFL told CNN’s Brian Stelter that the organization had not sent a letter to Trump.

“While we’d obviously wish the debate commission could find another night, we did not send a letter to Trump,” Stelter quoted the spokesman saying.

Watch Trump’s comments, as posted by ABC News, here: [video accessible via end link]

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/07/trump-says-nfl-sent-him-a-letter-railing-against-ridiculous-debate-schedule-but-the-nfl-says-they-didnt/

I wonder if he will be able to weasel out of them. Or maybe he will say he has the flu and have Pence stand in for him. . Or Clinton can talk to an empty chair lol. Wouldn't that make Clint Eastwood and the GOP cringe.

Not much difference between an empty chair and an empty suit.

true

Josh Marshall just might prove himself to be omniscient ~ his excellent take below sounds about right to me ~ ~ but as to the picture: WHAT KIND OF PARENT hands over babies to a screaming maniac? ~ the baby girl wants to get away and the baby boy is reduced to sobbing ~ ~ Sooz

TPM EDBLOG
How And Why Trump Will Try to Ditch the Debates


By Josh Marshall Published July 30, 2016, 4:30 PM EDT

Donald Trump gave his first hint last night that he might try to get out of the Fall presidential debates. I have thought for months that he'd likely try to get out of them. I think he will be at a steep strategic and tactical disadvantage in any debate with Hillary Clinton - a point I'll expand on later. But from thinking he'd try to get out of the debates, I wasn't clear how he'd do it without facing crushingly bad publicity and exposure as a coward. The latter is something that cuts apart everything his campaign is based on. A few weeks ago, I figured out what that strategy will be.


The requirement is simple: get out of the debates, make them not happen without seeming to be the one who's running away or tanking them. Here's how. I suspect Trump will start claiming that that the process is "rigged" because Gary Johnson and Jill Stein aren't included. For better or worse (I think better), the debate commission rules are crystal clear: You need to hit 15% support in a certain number of major polls to be included. It's highly unlikely Johnson will meet that threshold; it's almost impossible that Stein will. Inclusion over exclusion has an inherent logic to it even if it's obviously self-serving and not appropriate in this case. So I think Trump will find this a comfortable position from which to attack the debates themselves.

Trump does better in multi-person debates than one-on-ones. They're much less debates in any real sense. They're more like parallel taunt contests. The multi-person format also makes it easier to avoid policy detail. What's more, Stein would certainly work with Trump in tag-teaming Hillary Clinton, putting her under fire from both the left and right. Johnson's role is more uncertain. He's less of an attack dog by temperament. And who he'd have more interest in attacking is less clear than it might seem. I'm sure Clinton would weather such a debate. But it's clearly a less attractive option for her that a one on one with Trump.

What's more, agreeing to such a debate in contravention of the debate commission rules and at Trump's demand would show her giving into to Trump's bullying, which would be extremely damaging quite apart from whether two person or four person debates are better in the abstract.

The other thing to remember is that for all their flaws, presidential debates are fairly substantive. They have high caliber moderators like Jim Lehrer. Candidates are pressed on real questions. It's nothing like primary debates with a dozen or more participants. Trump's major liability is that a substantial majority of the public either believes or is inclined to believe that he is temperamentally unfit to be president. His natural path will be to try to bully or overwhelm Clinton. It's the essence of his political mode and message. But Clinton does not rattle easily. He'll have a very hard time throwing her off balance. Precisely the things he'll try to do are the kinds of things likely to reinforce the perception that he simply lacks the temperament to be president.

Trump has many reasons to want to avoid the debates, especially three one-on-one engagements. But by every measure, neither Clinton nor the debate commission seem likely to give in to his demands. He'll have the active support of Stein and Johnson (which makes sense), make a stir of fighting for a 'non-rigged' process and then simply refuse to participate. For anyone really paying attention, it will be obvious what happened. But for his supporters, it will be enough of a hook to pretend he didn't chicken out.

There's another thread to this story, which cuts slightly against this picture but is broadly part of the same one. Trump didn't so much debate in the Republican primaries as use them with some skill to enact a series of dominance rituals at the expense of his opponents. Indeed, this is the key to understanding virtually everything Trump does. Whatever is actually happening he tries to refashion it into a dominance ritual or at least will not engage before performing one. You saw that in those numerous examples where he said he would participate in a debate but only after the other party wrote a major check to charity. It's primal. He needs to dominate before he will engage.

Characterologically, Trump needs tension and drama. Fresh out of the conventions, he now needs to create a drama out of the debates. Like a bad seed kid, he can't help picking fights. He needs tension both to satisfy inner needs and to deal with other people. But even if he eventually agrees to participate in one or more of the debates, he will try mightily to force some change or break some dishes in order to assert dominance over the process. He'll insist someone needs to be included, some part of the format has to change, some location isn't sufficient. The substance will always be secondary to the need to impose his will. His initial volley making the non-sensical claim that Hillary Clinton scheduled the debates during football games is just the beginning.

I don't bet. But if I were to, I'd still assume the debates will happen. But I think there's a decent chance they won't. Remember, it's Trump. The stupidest possible scenario that can be reconciled with the available facts is most likely to be right.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/no-certainty-debates-will-happen-at-all

it's actually not his choice, technically speaking.

I can't see Trump debating Hillary at all. He will not take the risk of letting a strong woman humiliate him like she would.

The rules surrounding debates in Canada are seemingly at the whim of the governing party. In 2011, the usual system was used and the debates were broadcast by the 3 major broadcasters. As the election drew nearer in 2015, the Harper Conservative governing party decided to change everything and instead put forward a series of debates sponsored by various (Conservative) think tanks and publishers and they left it up to the broadcasters to decide if they wanted to carry them.

Well... that didn't go well for the Conservatives. With each debate, Liberal leader Justin Trudeau just got stronger and stronger and finally delivered the knock-out punch when he admonished Harper with: "Mr. Harper, A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian! There's no such thing as two tiers of Canadian citizenship." Within a day or two, the polls started to shift to Trudeau.

Trump could blow it all if he tries to mess with the debates. They do have an impact so he'd better accept that and brush up on his debate skills.

I can't. see Trump debating a strong, intelligent woman like Hillary. He wouldn't be able to handle the humiliation

He hasn't any "debate skills". He only has bully/bragging skills.

Trump will wimp if the debate people hold their ground... which is iffy. They want the ratings.

Clinton is in the perfect spot. i wonder if she knows it.

Good question. I'm not convinced that Clinton has good judgement.

I'm sure her "handlers" are aware of it.

Trump will sink himself. The Dems should encourage his foolish bombast. A wee bit of subtle baiting should suffice. Wind him up and turn him loose.

Oh, he'll be at the debates alright! In fact I expect he will want more of them. The debates were his strong point during the nomination campaign. He went up against a whole batch of not entirely unbright guys and a something or other in Fiorina, and blew them all out of the water. He didn't do it with policies or vision, he did it with that great American currency - entertainment. His entertainment value carried him to the nomination and, he's probably thinking, will take him to the White House.

To do that he needs the debates and he will manipulate them any which way he can. He's already started by attacking the schedule just to show he can bend the establishment and Hiullary to his will. Once in the debates he will scream, shout, insult and do everything he can to stop Hillary from making her points. She'll come off looking shrill and incapable of dealing with a bully.

The debates are Trump's best playground and he is not going to risk not being there for them.

Steve Benen is being overly generous by calling this a "fib" ~ it's an outright lie according to the NFL ~ and I've reached the threshold that if DT said today is Monday, I'd look for a calendar to confirm ~ ~ there are some "live links" to more/corroborating information in the original ~ Sooz

Caught in a fib, Trump hedges on debate schedule
08/01/16 09:20 AM—Updated 08/01/16 09:21 AM
By Steve Benen

It may seem hard to believe, but the first general-election presidential debate is next month. On Monday, Sept. 26, the major-party candidates – and any third-party candidate with more than 15% support in national polls – will meet for the first of three widely anticipated showdowns.

What’s unclear is whether or not Donald Trump will agree to participate.

Late Friday, the Republican nominee argued via Twitter that it’s “unacceptable” that Hillary Clinton and Democrats are “trying to rig the debates” so that they compete against “major NFL games.” A day later, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos asked the Republican nominee about his plans in an interview that aired yesterday on “This Week.”


Well, a couple of things. First, Trump should probably learn “how the dates were picked” before popping off. In reality, Clinton and Democrats didn’t set the schedule; the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates picked the dates last fall.

Second, Trump claims the NFL sent him a letter about this. That doesn’t appear to be true: the NFL insisted over the weekend that the league never sent any such letter.

All of which leads to questions about whether the Republican nominee may ultimately balk at the agreed upon schedule.

On “Face the Nation” yesterday, Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort was asked directly whether the candidate will agree to show up for the scheduled debates. Manafort replied, “He said he wants to participate in it, but just like we discovered in the hack of the DNC, Mrs. Clinton likes low audiences watching her debates.” He added, “So, we’re going to sit down with the commission in the next week or so and we’re going to start talking to them.”

In other words, it sounds as if Team Trump sees the existing schedule as the starting point for negotiations – which may include recommendations for significant changes.

And if those “talks” don’t go the way the Trump campaign wants? No one can say for sure exactly what might happen at that point.

Hillary Clinton has already agreed to participate in the three scheduled debates. It’s a safe bet that if Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson qualifies, he’ll be there, too.

For its part, the commission issued a statement yesterday saying it would be “impossible” to avoid conflicts with sporting events, and commissioners have a point. In late September and October, debate organizers are confronted with professional football games three nights a week, college football games at least one night a week, and major-league baseball playoffs.

This comes up every four years. Everyone involved does their best to work around the schedule.

Remember, while many Americans have come to expect these showdowns as a normal part of every election, Trump doesn’t have to participate. In the 1964, 1968, and 1972 election cycles, there were no debates at all. In 1992, then-President George H.W. Bush acted as if he really wanted to get out of the debates, but Bill Clinton’s campaign hired a guy to dress up in a chicken suit to mock the incumbent at public events, and Bush eventually relented.

Trump, the first nominee to suggest without proof that the process itself is “rigged,” will soon be confronted with a decision: would it be worse to appear cowardly by skipping some or all of the debates, or by showing up and doing poorly?

Or is this some kind of elaborate expectations-setting game, in which Team Trump tries to set the bar for success so low that if the GOP candidate shows up and avoids collapsing, he and his allies will declare him the winner?

Postscript: For the record, here’s the list of the scheduled debates, as agreed upon by the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates.

Sep 26, 2016 (Monday): First presidential debate, Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y.
Oct 4, 2016 (Tuesday): Vice presidential debate, Longwood University, Farmville, Va.
Oct 9, 2016 (Sunday): Second presidential debate, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Mo.
Oct 19, 2016 (Wednesday): Third presidential debate, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Nev.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/caught-fib-trump-hedges-debate-schedule#break

Interesting and valid points, jim ~ but I trust that Hillary will be steely in her resolve to allow DT to rant and will then continue to shred him with factual knowledge ~ she has withstood the onslaught of GOP/TPer disdain and dirty tricks for decades ~ just "more of the same" to her ~

Sooz

Don't be so certain, sooz. An angry electorate is an unpredictable electorate. That's what Trump is counting on.

Trump is a coward and hates strong women so I am not at all sure he will debate Hillary but I would love for one to happen. I would fully expect him to break all the rules of a debate.

I can envision Trimp yelling "Unfair" and stomping off the stage. Looking for a puppy to kick.

I see it more like a Bill O'Reilly interview. Someone asks Hillary a question, she starts to answer and he starts screaming and threatening and just talking over her. Other than having him bodily removed there's nothing a moderator could do to stop him and, if Hillary, stormed off or reacted she would look like the loser.

Trump will likely be "miced" if there are debates.