Donald Trump is making a mockery of TV debates just as he has trashed so many other norms of decent behaviour and democratic politics.
He has opted out of the first two debates between the candidates vying for the Republican nomination in next year’s US presidential election.
That does not mean that he is missing out on saturation coverage in the media. Rather than appearing on stage with the people competing against him, and who mostly refuse to criticise him anyway, he sat down for a rambling interview on his own terms with the former Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson.
Trump is not the only leading politician doing his best to avoid meeting their opponents on the equal ground of a TV debate.
In the past decade, prime ministers David Cameron, Theresa May and Boris Johnson all opted out of properly organised and regulated debates.
The three leaders debates in 2010 between Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg, brought about by the Sky News campaign, are still the only time that British viewers have had the benefit of debates between potential PMs to match the presidential debates which have been a feature of US politics since Nixon v JFK in 1960.
America’s presidential debates have provided the model for other countries to aspire to. Now Trump is undermining that example.
More on Donald Trump
Related Topics:
2024 is set to be a double election year in the US and UK. Politicians and the media in both countries need to start considering how debates can serve the public – by informing them fairly about the democratic choices facing them – rather than contributing to the erosion of public confidence and respect for representative democracy.
Nobody can say that Trump is not media savvy. He built his public image as the boss on the US version of The Apprentice and by putting his name to ghost-written books about “The Art Of The Deal”.
Advertisement
His freewheeling conversation with Tucker Carlson revealed that he is as skilled as ever at manipulating the media to his own advantage.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:38
Trump skips Republican debate
During his interview he praised the medium he was appearing on – a pre-recorded interview released on X, formerly known as Twitter – and derided cable news.
“We will get better ratings using this crazy forum that you are using than probably the debate,” he jeered.
He rubbed further salt into the wounds of Fox News Channel – which hosted the Republican debate, which sacked Carlson, and which has been promoting alternatives to Trump – by describing Mike Wallace, Fox’s main debate moderator in the last two election cycles, as “a b***** little man”.
Wallace has since moved to CNN – a more frequent target of Trump’s animosity but which has also found it hard to resist the ratings he brings. Earlier this year there were ructions at the network leading to the departure of its CEO after it gave a platform to Trump, who appeared alone and unchallenged on a full-length TV “town hall” show.
Mainstream broadcasters are struggling to produce even-handed, non-partisan, election events. Unscrupulous candidates have an increasing number of invitations to appear on less rigorous outlets such as GB News or X instead.
Elon Musk, X’s proprietor, is trying to make it a forum for right of centre political discourse, as exemplified by his technically disastrous hosting of the Ron DeSantis campaign launch.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:05
Trump: ‘We did nothing wrong at all’
Trump is boycotting the debates while his rivals attack each other and winnow out the field to his advantage.
Vivek Ramaswamy, 38, was widely seen as the winner in the Fox debate, but his policies are so close to Trump’s that they hardly threaten the original.
After they failed to make an impression there seems little point in the two least known candidates, Asa Hutchinson and Doug Burgum, staying in the race.
Trump’s biggest rival Ron DeSantis turned in a lacklustre performance, as did Tim Scott. Three critics of Trump – Mike Pence, Nikki Haley, and Chris Christie – are also still notionally in contention.
Their anti-Trump stances might appeal to the wider electorate but seem certain to cost them the support of the Republican party activists who vote in the primaries.
Trump is already hailing his fourth set of criminal charges, this time in the state of Georgia, as an opportunity to boost his support among Republicans and to rake in more donations to his campaign.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:19
Trump mugshot released
Carlson gave Trump the chance to say what he wanted without being challenged. He gloated that he had turned the convention on its head “that when someone gets indicted their numbers go down”.
Instead “I got indicted four times” and “I’m leading by 50 or 60 points” in the Republican nomination race. “Do I sit there [in a debate]… and get harassed by people who shouldn’t even be running for president?”. His answer is no.
As his rivals grappled with each other, Trump had the chance to get in some telling blows on his ultimate rival, Joe Biden, the Democratic nominee presumptive.
“I think he’s worse mentally than he is physically, and physically he is not exactly a triathlete.”
His cruel jibes about octogenarian Biden’s state of health raise important questions about presidential debates assuming Biden and Trump are the nominees.
The two men debated each other twice during the 2020 campaign under the auspices of the Presidential Debates Commission. A scheduled third debate was cancelled because Trump caught COVID-19.
Biden “won” both debates according to opinion polls. But Biden is now four years older and frailer. There is a danger that Trump could hijack debates between them to brutally expose Biden’s frailty – to the exclusion of all else.
In the UK, neither Rishi Sunak nor Keir Starmer have shown any enthusiasm for election debates.
Both men lack charisma but one or other of them will be the next prime minister.
The public needs to see them debate the real issues facing the country at election time – away from the awkwardly structured Punch and Judy at PMQs.
Broadcasters and regulators should be working together to hold a single head-to-head between the two to take place during the campaign.
One debate would surely not detract from the rest of the campaign in the way that it is claimed by some that three debates did in 2010.
There are some tough issues to be faced. The debate should not be “owned” by any network but rather staged in the public interest.
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
There is no need for participation by any third force. The Liberal Democrats’ electoral performance over the past decade does not justify participation and the SNP are a single-issue party, not relevant to the vast majority of UK voters and without the capacity to nominate a prime minister.
The influence of broadcast television is waning but it is still the most powerful news medium in the world.
Properly managed TV debates are still the best way to inform the wider voting public about the democratic choices before them – by watching the debates themselves and through the comment and analysis which percolates through afterwards.
Carefully curated debates on both sides of the Atlantic in 2024 would prove that broadcasters can be part of the solution rather than, inadvertently, contributing to the further degradation of democratic politics.
It was the first time a US president had been convicted of or charged with a criminal offence.
Trump had tried to cover up “hush money” payments to a porn star in the days before the 2016 election.
When Stormy Daniels‘ claimsof a sexual liaison threatened to upend his presidential campaign, Trump directed his lawyer to pay $130,000 (£102,000) to keep her quiet.
The payment buried the story and he later won the presidency.
Trump denied the charges and said the case was politically motivated. He also denied the sexual encounter took place.
New York State Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan today delayed the sentencing, which had been due to take place on Tuesday.
Advertisement
The office of district attorney Alvin Bragg had asked the judge to postpone all proceedings until Trump finishes his four-year presidency, which starts on 20 January.
Trump’s lawyers say the case should be dismissed because it will create “unconstitutional impediments” to his ability to govern.
Responding to Friday’s decision, a Trump campaign spokesman said: “The American People have issued a mandate to return him to office and dispose of all remnants of the Witch Hunt cases.”
The judge set a 2 December deadline for Trump’s lawyers to file their motion, while prosecutors have until 9 December to respond.
He did not set a new date for sentencing or indicate when he would rule on any motion to throw out the case.
Even before Trump’s win in this month’s election, experts said a jail term was unlikely and a fine or probation more probable.
But his resounding victory over Kamala Harris made the prospect of time behind bars or probation even less likely.
Trump, 78, was also charged last year in three other cases.
One involved him keeping classified documents after he left office and the other two centre on alleged efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss.
A Florida judge dismissed the documents case in July, the Georgia election case is in limbo, and the Justice Department is expected to wind down the federal election case as it has a policy of not prosecuting a sitting president.
Trump last week nominated his lawyers in the hush money case, Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, for senior roles in the Justice department.
When he re-enters the White House, Trump will also have the power to shut down the Georgia and New York cases.
Donald Trump has pledged for years to surround himself with ultra-loyalists who can mould his government to his vision without barriers.
That’s precisely why he picked Matt Gaetz. Now he’s out, Pam Bondi is in and she’s equally loyal.
Gaetz was uniquely unpopular on Capitol Hill but ultra-MAGA and ultra-loyal to the president-elect.
He was chosen by the president-elect to do his bidding inside the Justice Department as attorney general.
Critics called his pick “a red alert moment for democracy” and the man a “gonzo agent of chaos” – language that would surely only affirm Trump’s decision in his own proudly disruptive mind.
If it wasn’t for the fact that the president-elect is himself a convicted felon, and a man found liable in a civil court of his own sexual offences, the prospect of Gaetz, with all his baggage, making it through the nomination process would have seemed remote.
But Donald Trump’s return to the White House suggested anything is possible.
And so, beyond his loyalty, Gaetz was Trump’s test for his foot soldiers on Capitol Hill. How loyal were they? Would they wave through anyone he appointed?
It turns out that Gaetz, and the storm around his private life, was too much for a proportion of them.
Advertisement
At least five Senate Republicans were flatly against Matt Gaetz’s confirmation. We understand that they communicated to other senators and those close to Trump that they were unlikely to be swayed.
They included the Republican old guard like Senator Mitch McConnell.
Beyond the hard “no” senators, there were between 20 and 30 other Republicans who were very uncomfortable about having to vote for Gaetz on the Senate floor.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:23
Trump pick Matt Gaetz withdraws
The key question is whether Gaetz was Trump’s intentional wild card crazy choice that he knew, deep down, would probably never fly.
Was Gaetz the candidate he had accepted would be vetoed by senators – who would then feel compelled to wave the rest of his nominees through?
Will Pete Hegseth’s alleged sexual impropriety concern them as they consider the suitability of the former Fox News host and army major to run the Department of Defence?
What about Tulsi Gabbard, the candidate Russian state TV calls ‘our girl’, and the appropriateness of her running America’s intelligence agencies?
These are all appointments that the politicians on Capitol Hill must consider and confirm in the weeks ahead.
We don’t yet know who Trump will choose to direct the FBI.
There are some names being floated which will make the establishment of Washington shudder but then that’s precisely why Trump was elected. He is the disrupter. He said so at every rally, on repeat.
He was quick to pivot to another name to replace Gaetz.
Bondi is the former attorney general of Florida. Professionally she is in a different league to Gaetz. She’s been a tough prosecutor, with a no-nonsense reputation.
She is also among the most loyal of loyalists. Her attachment to Trump stretches way back.
I first came across her in Philadelphia in November 2020 when she was among Trump surrogates claiming the election back then had been stolen from them by Joe Bidenand the Democrats.
She was a key proponent of the false claims the election had been rigged and Trump was the rightful winner.
The court cases concluding that was all nonsense didn’t seem to convince her.
Now she is poised to head up the Department of Justice as the country’s top law enforcement official.
Within hours of taking office, president-elect Donald Trump plans to begin rolling out policies including large-scale deportations, according to his transition team.
Sky News partner network NBC News has spoken with more than half a dozen people familiar with the executive orders that his team plans to enact.
One campaign official said changes are expected at a pace that is “like nothing you’ve seen in history”, to signal a dramatic break from President Joe Biden’s administration.
Mr Trump is preparing on day one to overturn specific policies put in place by Mr Biden. Among the measures, reported by sources close to the transition team, are:
• The speedy and large-scale deportations of illegal immigrants
• Ending travel reimbursement for military members seeking abortion care
• Restricting transgender service members’ access to gender-affirming care
More on Donald Trump
Related Topics:
But much of the first day is likely to focus on stopping illegal immigration – the centrepiece of Trump’s candidacy. He is expected to sign up to five executive orders aimed at dealing with that issue alone after he is sworn in on 20 January.
“There will without question be a lot of movement quickly, likely day one, on the immigration front,” a top Trump ally said.
Advertisement
“There will be a push to make a huge early show and assert himself to show his campaign promises were not hollow.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:23
Donald Trump ally Matt Gaetz has withdrawn his name from consideration to be the next US attorney general.
But Mr Trump’s campaign pledges also could be difficult to implement.
Deporting people on the scale he wants will be a logistical challenge that could take years. Questions also remain about promised tax cuts.
Meanwhile, his pledge to end the war between Russia and Ukraine in just 24 hours would be near impossible.
Even so, advisers based at Mr Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort or at nearby offices in West Palm Beach, Florida, are reportedly strategising about ending the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East.
Following his decisive victory on 5 November, the president-elect has moved swiftly to build a cabinet and senior White House team.
As of Thursday, he had selected more than 30 people for senior positions in his administration, compared with just three at a similar point in his 2016 transition.
Stephen Moore, a senior economic adviser in Mr Trump’s campaign, told NBC News: “The thing to realise is Trump is no dummy.
“He knows he’s got two to three years at most to get anything done. And then he becomes a lame duck and we start talking about [the presidential election in] 2028.”