Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are veering sharply in how they gear up for Tuesday’s presidential debate, setting up a showdown that reflects not just two separate visions for the country but two politicians who approach big moments very differently.

The vice president is cloistered in a historic hotel in downtown Pittsburgh where she can focus on honing crisp two-minute answers, per the debate’s rules. She’s been working with aides since Thursday and chose a venue that allows the Democratic nominee the option of mingling with swing-state voters.

Trump, the Republican nominee, publicly dismisses the value of studying for the debate. The former president is choosing instead to fill his days with campaign-related events on the premise that he’ll know what he needs to do once he steps on the debate stage at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia.

“You can go in with all the strategy you want but you have to sort of feel it out as the debate’s taking place,” he said during a town hall with Fox News host Sean Hannity.

Trump then quoted former boxing great Mike Tyson, who said, “Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face.”

  • InternetUser2012
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    The sad part is his base won’t care how stupid he looks and how great she does. They’re beyond reasoning. I do look forward to our future President kicking the shit out of him at the debate though.

    • Nastybutler@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      3 months ago

      Debates aren’t for the candidate’s supporters. They’re for the undecided voters. How anyone is still undecided at this point is the real mystery

      • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Back in 2004 60 Minutes commentator Andy Rooney said that if you couldn’t decide between George Bush and John Kerry in five minutes you were too stupid to have a vote.

        edit = I had 2000 not 2004. credit wreel for noting it

        • wreel@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          Al Gore was 2000. John Kerry was 2004. But your point still stands. Any fuckwad who’s “on the fence” might only be barely above “too stupid to breath”.

      • laranis@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        3 months ago

        I’m convinced anyone who claims they’re undecided is just being polite to the pollster instead of telling them “none of your business”. Or “undecided” is some statistical construct based on the last 70 years of data. Or, someone who hasn’t been paying attention and doesn’t want to admit to their own apathy.

        The idea that someone has thoroughly weighed the offerings and is still waiting for more information to make a decision is utter fucking nonsense.

        • EpeeGnome@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          I think it’s not so much people who are undecided about who they will vote for, and more people who are undecided whether they will bother to vote for their preferred candidate or just stay home.

          • colmear@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            whether they will bother to vote for their preferred candidate or just stay home

            It’s more like vote or go to work. I really don’t get why this country doesn’t hold elections on a day where most people can participate. Actually I do get it, but I don’t get how people can still think of the USA as a democracy

            • absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 months ago

              Why have a specific day? Why not have a two week period, this would have almost everyone not having to choose between work and voting.

              • Oxymoron@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                2 months ago

                What time can you vote from then? I think in the UK it’s 7am-10pm so surely anyone can make it at some point during then?? If it’s the same there… but to be honest at least making it a two day thing seems like a decent option.

                But I struggle to see how you can’t make it between 7am and 10pm. It should be a legal right that your workplace has to let you have time to vote at some point during the day.

            • Oxymoron@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              I had a quick google of this (I’m from UK) and it seems to indicate that in most states you can actually vote early.

              Well specifically it says:

              For the 2024 Presidential General Election, early voting will be available from Thursday, October 24, 2024 through Thursday, October 31, 2024 (including Saturday and Sunday) from 7 am to 8 pm.

              That’s for Maryland. Gotta say it’s confusing that you seem to have different rules in different states, well not just confusing but actually undemocratic surely? Because it means some people in some states will have an easier time voting than others so are more likely to vote.

              Surely it should be exactly the same rules in every state. I’m assuming now that the times you can vote on the actual day may even be different depending on state.

              I get that you have different laws in different states for stuff. But surely for voting, it should be the exact same rules, because you’re electing the president of the whole of the USA not your state. (Although maybe you technically actually are only voting for the elector in your state that then casts their vote on your behalf, I even read that there have been rare occasions where the state elector went against what their state voted for!?)

              I dunno. Seems a little crazy and quite confusing.

              • colmear@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                From what I read is that republican led states usually make it harder to vote than democratic states, but I haven’t looked further into this.

                Although maybe you technically actually are only voting for the elector in your state that then casts their vote on your behalf, I even read that there have been rare occasions where the state elector went against what their state voted for!?

                This whole process of voting in the US seems very outdated to me (I am from Europe too). I know that it is hard to fundamentally change the system as long as nothing goes completely wrong. Germany had big loopholes in the constitution during the Republic of Weimar too. Changing this was easy after the total defeat during the Second World War. I have no idea how you could get through with updating the complete political system of a more or less „functional“ country. Even less if the country is as divided as the US is at the moment

      • InternetUser2012
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        3 months ago

        I was going to say the real mystery is how anyone could vote for the racist, but then yeah, that’s why they’re voting for him. We have a lot of shitty people in this country, but then again, the world is full of shitty people.

      • SulaymanF@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        There’s a lot of Americans who don’t follow news and to them they only started paying attention after Labor Day.