Donald Trump says there will be no more debates

Well, that’s it. Probably. Maybe. Actually, who knows?

For what it’s worth, Donald Trump announced on his Truth Social on Thursday that he will not debate Kamala Harris a second time.

Trump wrote, “When a prizefighter loses a fight, the first words out of his mouth are, ‘I WANT A REMATCH.’ Polls clearly show that I won the Debate against Comrade Kamala Harris, the Democrats’ Radical Left Candidate, on Tuesday night, and she immediately called for a Second Debate. She and Crooked Joe have destroyed our Country, with millions of criminals and mentally deranged people pouring into the USA, totally unchecked and unvetted, and with Inflation bankrupting our Middle Class. Everyone knows this, and all of the other problems caused by Kamala and Joe - It was discussed in great detail during the First Debate with Joe, and the Second Debate with Comrade Harris. She was a no-show at the Fox Debate, and refused to do NBC & CBS. KAMALA SHOULD FOCUS ON WHAT SHE SHOULD HAVE DONE DURING THE LAST ALMOST FOUR YEAR PERIOD. THERE WILL BE NO THIRD DEBATE!”

Trump often waffles about debates, constantly sending out conflicting and cryptic messages. At times, he seems to hint that he won’t debate, and then, often in the next breath, indicates he will.

But this latest statement seems pretty definite: THERE WILL BE NO THIRD DEBATE!

In an interview with the New York Post, Trump said, “We just don’t think that there’s any need for it.”

One could certainly understand why Trump would not want to debate Harris again. Most pundits (that is, everyone who is not a diehard Trump supporter) felt that not only did Harris have a superb night, but that Trump had a bad night.

Trump told the New York Post, “The debate polls, every single poll, had us winning it.”

OK, that’s not even close to being true.

As The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake noted, “The CNN poll showed Harris winning the debate 63 percent to 37 percent among debate-watchers, while the YouGov poll showed her winning 54-31 among registered voters who watched at least some of the debate, with 14 percent unsure.”

Harris’ campaign was so pleased with how it went that they posted the debate, in its entirety, on X and wrote, “Our newest ad just dropped.”

Meanwhile, I’m not sure how anyone could think Trump looked good Tuesday night. Harris easily baited Trump into losing his cool and getting off track. Instead of consistently or effectively going after Harris’ policies or stances, Trump was constantly on the defensive, easily triggered into defending, for example, the size of his rally crowds.

At one point, while Harris laughed, Trump ridiculously insisted that dogs and cats were being eaten by Haitians in Ohio. At another point, Trump said he had “concepts of a plan” for American health care. Those two moments stood out as prime examples of Trump being unprepared or failing to stick to the plan his advisors laid out for him.

Either way, it was a lousy night for the former president.

Republican strategist Karl Rove, the former deputy White House chief of staff under George W. Bush, blasted Trump in an editorial for The Wall Street Journal: “A Catastrophic Debate for Trump.”

Rove wrote, “As is frequently the case with Mr. Trump, he let his emotions get the better of him. He took the bait almost every time she put it on the hook, offering a pained smile as she did. Rather than dismissing her attacks and launching his strongest counterarguments against her, Mr. Trump got furious. As her attacks continued, his voice rose. He gripped the podium more often and more firmly. He grimaced and shook his head, at times responding with wild and fanciful rhetoric. Short, deft replies and counterpunches would have been effective. He didn’t deliver them.”

Rove added, “It matters how debating candidates carry themselves. There, it was no contest. Ms. Harris came across as calm, confident, strong and focused on the future. Mr. Trump came across as hot, angry and fixated on the past, especially his own. She mastered the split screen, projecting confidence and wordlessly undercutting him by smiling while shaking her head as he spoke.”

One could argue that Trump would want to get back into the ring with Harris to clean up the mess of his first debate with her. Then again, maybe he really does believe he won Tuesday’s debate and feels no need to debate Harris again.

But my gut tells me that Trump knows Tuesday did not go well — which is why he and his supporters are making the rounds criticizing debate moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis. Trump spent part of a rally on Thursday criticizing the moderators. But Trump also might be thinking that if it isn’t going to hurt him in the polls, why risk getting knocked around by Harris again and have it actually impact the polls and election?

For Harris, I agree with Claire McCaskill, the former Democratic senator from Missouri. She said on MSNBC after Tuesday’s debate that Harris should welcome any opportunity to stand alongside Trump and show the American people the contrast between the two. That’s why it was no surprise that her camp wanted a second debate immediately after the first one went better than even they could have hoped for.

That’s also why Harris said at a rally in North Carolina on Thursday, “I believe we owe it to the voters to have another debate, because this election and what is at stake could not be more important.”

Harris is now in a good spot.

Her best strategy is to call Trump a scaredy cat for not wanting to debate her again. If he agrees, Harris surely believes she can dominate him again.

And if he refuses, Harris can taunt him for ducking her.

Come to think of it, if that were to happen, Trump’s ego might drive him back to the debate stage.

That’s why I’m not convinced that we’ve seen the last debate between Trump and Harris.

A MESSAGE FROM POYNTER

Are you a new manager? Here’s a primer.

Whether you’re a few years into your first management position or just starting your journey, this popular in-person workshop will help you build a strong foundation and give you the tools to help your teams excel and succeed.

Read more and apply now.

AI, ethics and journalism

Be sure to check out a new report from my colleagues at Poynter: “Poynter Summit on AI, Ethics & Journalism: Putting audience and ethics first.”

Earlier this summer, Poynter brought together more than 40 newsroom leaders, technologists, editors and journalists for a two-day summit to look at AI, ethics and journalism.

Here’s a recap of the event with some of the key takeaways: “When it comes to using AI in journalism, put audience and ethics first.”

And now for more media news, tidbits and links for your weekend review …

• Man, this pets-being-eaten conspiracy rumor out of Ohio would be completely hilarious if not for the fact that so many people actually believe it. The Washington Post’s Sarah Ellison and Jeremy B. Merrill dug deep to show how this all happened in “Anatomy of a racist smear: How false claims of pet-eating immigrants caught on.” The Post wrote, “The allegation, based on scattered social media posts drawing on photos and stories far from Springfield, unspooled over several days into a twisted and demagogued message that Trump amplified on the debate stage for tens of millions of viewers. The moment highlighted how the real issues facing American towns can turn almost instantly into politically fruitful — and potentially dangerous — campaign fodder, particularly when they involve race or migrants.”
• You must see this: The New York Times’ opinion section gets with actor Joseph Gordon-Levitt for “A Debate Recap With Song, Dance and Joseph Gordon-Levitt.” (Who could ever have imagined The New York Times trying something like this? And, I should add, I’m a huge fan of news organizations doing stuff like this.)
• The Los Angeles Times’ Stephen Battaglio with “Linsey Davis held Trump’s feet to the fire. How she became ABC News’ rising star.”
• Axios’ Alex Thompson and Sara Fischer with “News photographers slam Harris for reduced access.”
• The Harris campaign said she will do more media in the coming days and weeks, including more local interviews and an interview with the National Association of Black Journalists. The Hill’s Brett Samuels has more.
• The Wall Street Journal’s Jessica Toonkel, Amol Sharma, Alex Frangos, Katherine Sayre and Keach Hagey with a story that looks like it comes straight from HBO’s “Succession”: “The Family Rift Driving Rupert Murdoch to Redo His ‘Irrevocable’ Trust.”
• Fern Shen of the Baltimore Brew with “Baltimore Sun fires reporter for raising questions internally about news coverage under David Smith’s ownership.”
• When actor James Earl Jones died earlier this week at the age of 93, we all weighed in with our favorite James Earl Jones role. Was it the voice of Darth Vader in “Star Wars?” Or the voice of Mufasa in “The Lion King?” Was it “Field of Dreams” or “Sandlot” or one of dozens of other masterful performances he gave? For this media newsletter, however, we should point out one of his most famous jobs that is only seconds long. It’s Jones saying on promo ads, “This … is … CNN.” Here’s The Ringer’s Lex Pryor with “The Vast Universes of James Earl Jones’s Voice.”

More resources for journalists

• Applications are due today for Lead With Influence.
• Build a framework for ethics and standards around AI in Level Up.
• Are you an upcoming-and-coming newsroom manager?

Have feedback or a tip? Email Poynter senior media writer Tom Jones at [email protected].