Trump-Kamala September Debate In Jeopardy Over Microphone Dispute

There are new concerns about whether the first presidential debate in September between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris will take place.

According to CNN, "Trump’s team would like for the microphones to be muted throughout the debate except for the candidate whose turn it is to speak, as was the case during the first debate with President Joe Biden."

However, the Harris campaign is pushing for a different approach. "The Harris campaign, according to a senior campaign official, is requesting that ABC and other networks seeking to host a potential October debate keep microphones on," the report added, noting that this stance marks a shift from the June debate, when the Biden campaign preferred muted microphones except when it was a candidate’s turn to speak.

Brian Fallon, the Harris campaign’s senior adviser for communications, stated, “We have told ABC and other networks seeking to host a possible October debate that we believe both candidates’ mics should be live throughout the full broadcast.” He also remarked, “Our understanding is that Trump’s handlers prefer the muted microphone because they don’t think their candidate can act presidential for 90 minutes on his own.”

Trump’s team, on the other hand, insists that they agreed to the debate under the same rules as the previous one with Biden. Jason Miller, a senior adviser for Trump’s campaign, emphasized, “We accepted the ABC debate under the exact same terms as the CNN debate.”

These developments come at a pivotal moment in the 2024 race, which saw a significant shift recently when Robert F. Kennedy Jr. suspended his campaign and endorsed Trump. Despite polling at around 5 percent nationwide, Kennedy’s endorsement could influence the race in a close contest between Harris and Trump.

Dave Wasserman, a senior editor and elections analyst at Cook Political Report, told the New York Post, "Most of Kennedy’s left-leaning support had already dispersed to Harris," which could benefit Trump. He noted that "Forty-six percent of RFK supporters went with Trump in a two-way race, 26% went with Harris," adding that campaigns spend significant resources for even a slight advantage in battleground states.

Pollster Chris Lane from Cygnal pointed out that "among swing voters who will ultimately decide this election, 16% indicated they were going to vote for RFK." This group could be crucial in battleground states, where "razor-thin" margins make every vote count.

Even pollster Frank Luntz acknowledged the potential impact of the RFK endorsement, stating, "It’s probably worth about 1% for Trump and that 1% could be everything if it’s in the swing states." Luntz also criticized the media's reaction to the endorsement, suggesting that if RFK had endorsed Harris, he would have been hailed as a hero.

Scott Rasmussen, the founder of Rasmussen Reports, highlighted recent polling that showed Harris with a slight lead over Trump when RFK was included in the mix, but the race tied when RFK voters were pushed to make a choice. Rasmussen suggested that while RFK’s endorsement may give Trump a small boost, other factors, including the debates and economic trends, could have a more significant impact on the election.