Will there be general election debates?

[indietraveler]

I'm not sure what would be worse for Trump, dropping out of the debates or debating and sounding like a rambler. He has a lot of catching up to do to actually articulate policy on even a basic level. His debate persona may have worked on the republican electorate but it's going to be a turn off to swing voters, I think suburban college educated voters in particular.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

I think Trump would go up in the polls if he refused to debate.  It's that kind of year.

[Joe Biden is your president. Deal with it.]

If Trump refuses to debate, he's done for.

He wont .. at least not the 1st one . 

He will probably bomb hard at the first one and will be too scared to do the rest.

[Vega]

I hope he doesn't so to throw egg in the idiots that run the Commission on Presidential Debates.

[Hermit For Peace]

Trump doesn't do anything he doesn't shine at. He'll concoct some lame excuse for getting around any possible debates, wait and see.

[ProudModerate2]

If Trump refuses to debate, he's done for.

He wont .. at least not the 1st one . 

He will probably bomb hard at the first one and will be too scared to do the rest.

I think you hit the nail right on the head.

[ProudModerate2]

Trump doesn't do anything he doesn't shine at. He'll concoct some lame excuse for getting around any possible debates, wait and see.

Do you mean .....
He is currently being "audited" for things he said for the past Republican debates, so until that is resolved, he cannot do future debates.

[Hermit For Peace]

Trump doesn't do anything he doesn't shine at. He'll concoct some lame excuse for getting around any possible debates, wait and see.

Do you mean .....
He is currently being "audited" for things he said for the past Republican debates, so until that is resolved, he cannot do future debates.

There you go. Not out of the realm of possibility.

[Mr. Morden]

But the debates are expected to have record viewership ($$$) and if he tries to skip them there will be tremendous pressure to reconsider.

But the general election debates aren't sponsored by any one network.  They're commercial free and simultaneously broadcast across all networks.  Do the networks really make much money off of them?  In fact, the broadcast networks most likely lose money on them, because they're prevented from running their normal primetime slate of shows and have to air something without commercials instead.

I'm pretty sure they get enough money from ads pre and post-debate when the pundits start parsing every word. If they weren't lucrative they would have been canceled many years ago.

My guess is that it’s lucrative enough for the cable news networks like CNN and Fox News, but I doubt the general election debates make any money for the broadcast networks (e.g., ABC, CBS, NBC).  Even if 100 million people were to watch (which would be a record), that’s spread out over about 10 different channels, and so it’s not clear that it generates that many more viewers for, say, CBS than an NCIS rerun would, and the NCIS rerun would have commercials.

The broadcast networks air these things to help their news branding, and because they’re shamed into it by other news organizations and they want to put on a show of “we are serving the public by broadcasting hard news content”, so they can make a case to Congress for why they should still have control of the public airwaves.

[cwt]

But the debates are expected to have record viewership ($$$) and if he tries to skip them there will be tremendous pressure to reconsider.

But the general election debates aren't sponsored by any one network.  They're commercial free and simultaneously broadcast across all networks.  Do the networks really make much money off of them?  In fact, the broadcast networks most likely lose money on them, because they're prevented from running their normal primetime slate of shows and have to air something without commercials instead.

I'm pretty sure they get enough money from ads pre and post-debate when the pundits start parsing every word. If they weren't lucrative they would have been canceled many years ago.

My guess is that it’s lucrative enough for the cable news networks like CNN and Fox News, but I doubt the general election debates make any money for the broadcast networks (e.g., ABC, CBS, NBC).  Even if 100 million people were to watch (which would be a record), that’s spread out over about 10 different channels, and so it’s not clear that it generates that many more viewers for, say, CBS than an NCIS rerun would, and the NCIS rerun would have commercials.

The broadcast networks air these things to help their news branding, and because they’re shamed into it by other news organizations and they want to put on a show of “we are serving the public by broadcasting hard news content”, so they can make a case to Congress for why they should still have control of the public airwaves.

I agree this is probably the case. The State of the Union Address is the same way, and I doubt anyone's making money off of that.

[SillyAmerican]

The media would destroy Trump if he tried to get out the debates.

I would think we would have learned by now that the media does not have the ability to destroy Trump.

I think the problem is that there aren't enough cable TV hosts who can effectively and skillfully make the case against him.  There are some well-intentioned liberals like Chris Shays and Lawrence O'Donnell who have dedicated their entire shows to attacking him, but their strident, crusading style becomes off-putting and tiresome after just a couple episodes.  Rachel Maddow is an example of a host who can subtly convey the dangers of a Trump presidency without attempting to hammer it into her audience over the whole 60 minute duration of her show.

I think the problem is "news organizations" that think it their job to "effectively and skillfully make the case against him". I realize I'll probably be branded an idiot for saying so, but I thought that the job of making a case against a presidential candidate belonged to the opposing candidate(s), not the debate moderators. Herein lies the quandary: everyone knows that the liberal press will have it out for Trump, but thus far they haven't been very successful with their attacks. This time around, the electorate isn't buying what the news people are serving up, and in the age of twitter etc., there are ways for a candidate to get his/her message out to people without having to depend on "news organizations", and (thus far, anyway) Mr. Trump has been fairly effective at doing just that. So to Hillary and her people: good luck with trying to knock Trump off his game...

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

No. Trump is going to hold out for including the Green and Libertarian candidates, if not something even crazier, and Clinton will refuse, with each blaming the other for the lack of a debate.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Public speaking and debating is Hillary's strength. Imagine Trump trying to sound intelligent in a debate with her. All he has is trash talk and jive.

Which, in a general election campaign, may be all he needs. Voters are not smart people. Their political allegiances tend to lie more in the dislike of the other side than in policy or ideology, too.

[Ogre Mage]

Given the misogyny that Trump has shown throughout the campaign, can you imagine the overwhelming ridicule that will rain down on Trump for refusing to debate Hillary?

I can see the headlines now:  "Terrified Trump running scared from debate with Clinton."  LOL.

[Frodo]

Doubt it -if he can't bring himself to debate Bernie Sanders of all people, how can he face Hillary Clinton who is infinitely more skilled than he is? 

[ag]

Public speaking and debating is Hillary's strength. Imagine Trump trying to sound intelligent in a debate with her. All he has is trash talk and jive.

Which, in a general election campaign, may be all he needs. Voters are not smart people. Their political allegiances tend to lie more in the dislike of the other side than in policy or ideology, too.

Unfortunately, yes. Who cares if what he says is wrong or stupid? Who cares if his debate performance alone costs the US billions of dollars on the very next day (as will likely be the case if he talks about "renegotiating the debt" with polls close)? His fans will lovingly suck it all up.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Doubt it -if he can't bring himself to debate Bernie Sanders of all people, how can he face Hillary Clinton who is infinitely more skilled than he is? 

Trump is too scared to debate Bernie, but so is Hillary. I don't think Trump is too scared to debate Hillary.

[IceSpear]

Doubt it -if he can't bring himself to debate Bernie Sanders of all people, how can he face Hillary Clinton who is infinitely more skilled than he is? 

Trump is too scared to debate Bernie, but so is Hillary. I don't think Trump is too scared to debate Hillary.

Hillary is so scared to debate Bernie that she did so 9 times. Do you really think a 10th would've made a difference?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Doubt it -if he can't bring himself to debate Bernie Sanders of all people, how can he face Hillary Clinton who is infinitely more skilled than he is? 

Trump is too scared to debate Bernie, but so is Hillary. I don't think Trump is too scared to debate Hillary.

Hillary is so scared to debate Bernie that she did so 9 times. Do you really think a 10th would've made a difference?

If it wouldn't make a difference, then why did she renege on her promise?

[IceSpear]

Doubt it -if he can't bring himself to debate Bernie Sanders of all people, how can he face Hillary Clinton who is infinitely more skilled than he is? 

Trump is too scared to debate Bernie, but so is Hillary. I don't think Trump is too scared to debate Hillary.

Hillary is so scared to debate Bernie that she did so 9 times. Do you really think a 10th would've made a difference?

If it wouldn't make a difference, then why did she renege on her promise?

She's too busy with Trump now, if you haven't noticed.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Doubt it -if he can't bring himself to debate Bernie Sanders of all people, how can he face Hillary Clinton who is infinitely more skilled than he is? 

Trump is too scared to debate Bernie, but so is Hillary. I don't think Trump is too scared to debate Hillary.

Hillary is so scared to debate Bernie that she did so 9 times. Do you really think a 10th would've made a difference?

If it wouldn't make a difference, then why did she renege on her promise?

She's too busy with Trump now, if you haven't noticed.

Whatever she's busy with regarding Trump isn't very effective. Bernie is polling quite a bit better against Trump than her.

[Ebowed]

We all know Ding Dong Trump is too much of a wuss to actually go on a debate stage with Clinton.  He's going to skip the events to host fraudulent fundraisers, like a total coward.

Sad!

[Hermit For Peace]

Doubt it -if he can't bring himself to debate Bernie Sanders of all people, how can he face Hillary Clinton who is infinitely more skilled than he is? 

Trump is too scared to debate Bernie, but so is Hillary. I don't think Trump is too scared to debate Hillary.

Hillary is so scared to debate Bernie that she did so 9 times. Do you really think a 10th would've made a difference?

If it wouldn't make a difference, then why did she renege on her promise?

She's too busy with Trump now, if you haven't noticed.

Whatever she's busy with regarding Trump isn't very effective. Bernie is polling quite a bit better against Trump than her.

Wait until Bernie gets out of her way. Her numbers will shoot up.

[wolfsblood07]

I believe there were no debates until 1960.  None in 64, 68, and 72.  Then for some reason there were debates every time since 76.  A waste of time, because debates are superficial.  Nixon did not lose to Kennedy on substance, he won on substance.  He only lost on style and appearance.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

^^ In 64 and 72 LBJ/Nixon had such a YUGE lead that they weren't going to waste time debating. In 68 the debates would have included Wallace if they were held, which the major party nominees would not tolerate. A similar intolerance of John Anderson almost derailed the 1980 debates btw.