A tactical mistake, or an emphatic dunk? Or could this be, as my pal and partner Adam Baldwin argued while we were recording Monday's upcoming Amiable Skeptics episode, a negotiation tactic?

We'll see soon enough, one supposes. Donald Trump claimed victory in Tuesday's debate in a post on Truth Social, and emphatically declared that there would be no more debates this cycle:

... Everyone knows this, and all of the other problems caused by Kamala and Joe - It was discussed in great detail during the First Debate with Joe, and the Second Debate with Comrade Harris. She was a no-show at the Fox Debate, and refused to do NBC & CBS. KAMALA SHOULD FOCUS ON WHAT SHE SHOULD HAVE DONE DURING THE LAST ALMOST FOUR YEAR PERIOD. THERE WILL BE NO THIRD DEBATE!

Somehow, I doubt that the media will see it this way. In fact, it seems unlikely to sell even among conservative media outlets. However, the latter may feel enough relief that they're willing to run with this narrative for a while. 

Frankly, I see this as a tactical mistake, but hardly a fatal one. Trump could have forced Harris into this position by agreeing to another debate, but at the venue of his choosing after agreeing to Biden's terms in the previous agreement. Demand a debate on Fox News moderated by Bret Baier, Brit Hume, and Martha MacCallum, and dare Harris to agree. She wouldn't come near Fox News, in which case he'd have the narrative of Harris being too afraid to meet him in a fairer venue.

To give a preview of our discussion on Monday, Adam thinks we may get exactly that anyway. Harris will undoubtedly needle Trump over this refusal, as will the mainstream media, and Harris might even offer to let Trump pick the venue. At that point, Adam posits, Trump can come back and agree to do it only at the venue of his choice, with the rules in place that forbid moderators to interject themselves into the argument. At that point, Harris will be stuck.

And Trump does have a point about Harris refusing the September 4 debate offer. Trump had that set up with Baier and MacCallum -- their hard-news anchors -- as moderators. She could have agreed to that debate, and might have even had more flexibility with the microphone rules, too. She chose to reject that debate, so Trump has the precedent to reject any of her entreaties past the original agreement.

Given that I didn't think either Harris or Trump performed all that impressively on Tuesday, except Harris against very low expectations, I doubt voters will mind skipping any more of these events. Trump didn't remain disciplined against provocations, adding to the temperament questions again; Harris never provided substantive answers about her record or policy. Would a second debate fix those problems for either candidate? Probably not, although Trump might have more upside in that sense than Harris would. 

Of course, I dislike these debates anyway, and after watching ABC News corrupt the process on Tuesday evening, I won't miss another Debate Night. But Adam may be onto something, so ... keep your calendars flexible.