Donald Trump was mouthing off on the Jimmy Kimmel program Wednesday night when he said he’d “love” to debate Sen. Bernie Sanders for charity. Shortly thereafter, the Sanders campaign agreed via tweet. Only this morning did Trump’s people pop the balloon, telling CBS News that Trump was “kidding” when he said on national television that he would love to do this exciting thing for charity.
He should’ve done it.
Not just to provide entertainment to the masses and money for charity, or to keep his word. Those are some upsides. But also, there are no downsides. If he has a bad debate against Bernie Sanders, it would still heighten tensions within the Democratic Party at a point when they’re already running pretty high. If he has a good debate against Bernie Sanders, then he has a good debate against Bernie Sanders.
And, yes, it’s possible Trump could have a good debate. Consider the dozen presidential debates he’s already participated in this cycle that appeared disastrous, given how each moment exposed his utter unpreparedness for the presidency, but for whatever strange anti-reasons only helped him. Debating with an eye toward the general and before a general electorate would be a different story. But one could imagine him just mocking Bernie as “Professor Whacko” or whatever for two hours and getting away with it, in his trademark way of getting away with things.
Should Trump be given to tactics beyond name-calling his opponent, he’d have a strong one at his ready: squeezing Sanders on Clinton. As he has already been doing, Trump could echo some of Sanders’ (mostly unpersuasive) complaints about the primary process: that a corporate-controlled Democratic establishment and its ringleader Hillary Clinton have rigged the process, making it impossible for Sanders to win. He could echo all of Sanders’ complaints about how Clinton is owned by Goldman Sachs. What does Sanders say to these things? Does he … agree with Donald Trump? Or does he defend Hillary Clinton against variations of the arguments he himself has made while he’s still trying to beat her in California?
The other possibility is that Sanders could trounce Trump, refuting just about everything he says and pointing out what an awful human being he is. That might temporarily embarrass Trump. But Trump isn’t going to be running in the general election against Sanders. The best outcome for Sanders, here, would be that he puts on enough of a show against Trump to catapult him to a come-from-behind victory in the California primary.
A Sanders win in California would be a godsend for the Republican Party. It would not net him enough delegates to win the nomination. It would give him a half-baked reason to stave off conceding to Clinton, spend the first half of the summer persuading superdelegates to come to his side, and turn the convention into a confrontational affair. Trump has of late been propping up Sanders for the purpose of tenderizing Hillary. What better way is there to prop up Sanders than to, either self-consciously or not, take a dive against him?
Of course Trump was just blabbing nonsense when he said he’d “love” to debate Sanders. A pity, for him, that his advisers were so quick to clean it up before giving the idea further consideration.
