Sunday Morning Coffee — September 8, 2024–THE Marquee Match-Up Of Opening Weekend

This is the weekend we have been waiting for. The NFL has returned. Finally. We can welcome back the frenetic Scott Hanson hosting the Red Zone and getting every fantasy player’s pulse racing for six hours every Sunday.

However, the big game this opening weekend wasn’t the Chiefs and Ravens on Thursday night. Nor the Pack and Eagles in Brazil on Friday. Sure, Texas and Michigan was a big deal yesterday but not big enough. Even the Jets and Niners on Monday will take a back seat to Tuesday night’s marquee pairing— Donald Trump vs. Kamala Harris.

And while every NFL stadium was packed this weekend, there won’t be anybody in the bleachers at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia the day after tomorrow, which delights Oakland A’s fans as finally there’s a national event that will draw even less than the A’s.

So, now on debate watch, this presents the perfect opportunity for Ed Rogers to make his annual visit to Sunday Morning Coffee for the fourth straight year. Rogers is our SMC political go-to once a year, right around this time.

Some of you are familiar with him and his predications. As he’s told us over and over again, “Predictions are for losers.” However, in the political world Rogers is a winner. He is the founding partner of the international public affairs firm Barbour, Griffith and Rogers. He got his political expertise honest, as the say in his native Alabama, serving the senior Bush administration from 1988-91 as Deputy Assistant to the President and Executive Assistant to the chief of staff. Prior, he was in the office of political affairs in the Reagan White House.

Ed Rogers

Rogers, 65, is a former colleague of mine as a past partner in Medjet (Medjet.com). He still remains a friend. So, with the main event on Tuesday night here is our annual Q & A. I asked, Ed answered. Some of you will get into a tizzy believing we are injecting politics into Sunday Morning Coffee. But there is nothing political here. Just a couple of guys on a park bench killing time and having a fun conversation. One who has a bunch of questions; the other who knows his stuff.

SMC: Was the residual damage to President Biden from the June 27 debate the most consequential in American political history since Kennedy-Nixon in 1960?

Rogers: Yes and then some. There’s never been a debate that potentially had a bigger impact on the country. An incumbent taken out of the race because of poor performance. That’s major.

What advice would you give each candidate on Tuesday night?

In Harris’ case I would say keep it short, don’t wander and have a few pre-packaged fresh quips about Trump that can provoke him. Then let the media do the work for her afterwards. As for Trump it’s the same old thing—don’t be crazy, don’t attack. He is not a good debater. I don’t think he has the skill set, short of calling someone names, to use her negatives effectively to put enough doubt in people’s minds.

If the debate schedule would have been traditional, in the fall following both conventions instead of the one in June, would Biden be the Democratic candidate today?

I’d have to think yes. It would be hard to see how he would not be the nominee.

Since the 2020 election, the Republicans and the Trump camp have been preparing for the Biden rematch. Their money, effort and strategy has been solely in that direction. Late in the game the rug gets pulled out and now they have a new, fresh, young opponent. How much of a toll does that take on the campaign?

It’s very big especially in this case. Trump could and would have beaten Biden. He probably can’t beat anyone else, and the lack of preparation time certainly doesn’t help.

I wrote in SMC a few weeks ago that on July 20, the day before President Biden announced his withdrawal from the race, that Kamala Harris went to sleep a Dan Quayle type of political character and wakes up the next morning as Winston Churchill. How can you explain it?

I think that analogy is unfair to poor Dan Quayle. (Laughs). Harris went through a total media generated transformation. She didn’t do anything. The press took ownership of her. And here we are.

Ironic, but a year ago you told us the Dems know they have a problem with Kamala. My how things have changed.

Yes, things have changed a lot. One of Biden’s challenges was to continue to clear the mental and physical bar. He did just the opposite. The Democrats will tell you it was part of their affirmative reason to keep Biden as the candidate because they thought Harris couldn’t win. When Biden failed as a candidate at a very late time in the campaign there was no other alternative.

Historically, as you have pointed out many times, vice presidential candidates, though sometimes fodder for the media, don’t play a role in the ultimate general election results. Is this year different?

No. Neither one will draw any significant amount of votes.

Did Harris choose wisely with Tim Walz?

I don’t think she made a mistake. Again, no electoral votes will flip because he’s on the ticket.

Same question. Did Trump choose wisely with JD Vance?

I think so. Vance is good on his feet. He can do something Trump can’t—he can intellectualize Trumpism better than Trump. Trump doesn’t have a good forward narrative on any topic. Vance does. But again, in the big picture, it won’t make much of a difference.

Why will Harris win the election?

Because she’s not Trump.

Why will Trump win the election?

Because Kamala has a breakthrough blithering moment.

Over the next two months, what’s the one mistake Harris has to avoid?

Going off script.

Same question for Trump.

He needs to diminish his smugness. He cannot continue to be an angry figure. He needs to dial it back.

What state will ultimately determine the winner?

North Carolina. Harris is going to need a toss-up state, I don’t think she can win Georgia. If Trump wins them both, it’s probably game over.

A year ago you said it will be hard for Trump to win the general election because he has “alienated so many people at the human level.” You still subscribe to that?

Yes, and now it’s worse by comparison. People didn’t really connect with Biden. Kamala makes a vibrant presentation which is more potential vulnerability for Trump.

This is the time you will remind me once again that “predications are for losers.” Over the past week the offshore wagering odds on the presidential race have changed and now Trump is the slight favorite to win the electoral contest. On Oddschecker.com he is -103 while Kamala is +116. What that means is if you bet $100 on Trump, you have to lay $103 to win the hundred. If you like Harris to win, you wager $100 and win $116. So, here’s a C-note. What’s your play?

Intellectually I would bet Kamala. If the election is today it would surprise me if Trump won but over the next 60 days so much can happen. We saw that on June 27.

Other than predictions, is betting on the presidential contest for losers?

There is no doubt about that. Unless of course you win.