The Prospect of a Third Presidential Debate: PR Strategies for Trump and Harris

As election season is in full swing, many sources provide prime examples of how public relations play a role in political campaigns. One example from September is how both the Trump and Harris campaigns handled the idea of a third debate. After the second debate, there was talk about whether both Trump and Harris would want to participate in a third one. The responses from both sides were drastically different and exemplify two public relations strategies that can be used when distributing a candidate’s message about certain events. I will discuss the responses in this post, but if you want to know more specifics, please reference this CNN article. 

For those that are familiar with the situation, the so-called “winner” of the debate that took place in September has been contested. However, it was generally stated that Harris handled the debate more eloquently than Trump. This is not a political blog, but it is necessary to address this, as it reflects the mindsets of the Harris and Trump campaigns after the debate. For Harris, the idea of a third debate seemed reasonable, as she received mostly positive feedback from the second one.

Harris and her team stated many times that they would be happy to participate in a third debate. They also expressed that they believed it would be beneficial for the public to hear the candidates answer questions again before voting commenced. This was a smart strategy for the Harris campaign, as it allowed her to capitalize on the perceived success of the debate. This strategy also positioned Harris in a place of power and demonstrated that she was not afraid to face Trump again. The confidence that came with her statements, likely directed by the public relations professionals working on her campaign, allowed Harris to seem more mature than Trump, which has been an angle unique to the Harris campaign from the beginning.  

In comparison, the Trump campaign was steadfast in the fact that he won the debate, disregarding much of the public sentiment. This may not seem like a good position for Trump to take; however, over the past eight years, it has become clear that his supporters value what he says above anyone else. So, even though the insistence on a win may not have gained any outside votes, it greatly appealed to his supporters. In terms of his refusal to debate Harris for a second time, he was also able to capitalize on the steadfast support of his followers. He claimed that the debate had turned into a “three vs. one” battle, referencing that the two moderators teaming up against him. Based on this and other reasons, he and his team conveyed a message that they thought a third debate would be unfair.

This strategy allowed Trump to remain in the good graces of his supporters while further encouraging them to deny the legitimacy of the Harris campaign. Whether or not you feel this is an ethical or honest strategy is up for you to decide. However, we can recognize that the strategic responses to the questions about a third debate were generally successful for Trump. Despite his performance in the second debate and refusal to participate in a third one, it is unlikely that Trump lost any more supporters than he gained based on polling data.  

Overall the two strategies deployed by both campaigns are prime examples of how public relations and messaging strategies used in the profession can bolster support for a candidate.