Weeks of rumors and negotiations between the staffs of the two leaders to prepare the ground: the moment of the TV debate between Meloni and Schlein is finally coming. No, not really. No confrontations for us, we had only had the illusion of it. But the one between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump is here, it is real. The direct clash, perhaps the last before the November elections, has arrived. Millions of Americans and many others from around the world will be tuned in to ABC: they will be able to see them face to face without having to deal with social media posts or self-referential videos. Does all this really serve any purpose? Let’s talk about it.

First rule: have the rules

Something like this is not left to chance. The Harris-Trump TV debate follows detailed rules, negotiated between the two staffs and the broadcaster, designed to leave no room for improvisation or favoritism. The debate will last an hour and a half, with two commercial breaks. The candidates cannot ask each other questions: the only ones who can ask them will be the two moderator journalists, David Muir and Linsey Davis.

Now it’s Harris vs Trump: a virtual coin toss has determined the position on the stage and the order of the closing statements: the former president has chosen to speak last while the current vice president will stand on the left of the stage. The candidates will have two minutes to answer questions, two minutes to respond and an extra minute for any further information, clarifications or answers.

As in the last debate between Joe Biden and Trump, the microphone remains on only for the speaker. No advantages on questions, which are not known in advance, or “help from home”, since the staff cannot interact with their clients during commercial breaks. The two challengers will have with them a pen, water and a pad of paper.

Other aspects have already been decided, from the entrance on stage to the positioning, up to the presentations. All clear. In Italy these rules would be flatly rejected by the staff, surely labeled as “too complicated”, because they are used to something completely different.

TV debates in Italy: the good old days

Before the European elections there was much talk of a TV debate between Giorgia Meloni and Elly Schlein, then nothing came of it, also due to the intervention of Agcom. Fratelli d’Italia made it known that it did not want to “waste the Prime Minister’s time any more”. It would not have been bad to “take advantage” of his time: perhaps the voters could have seen a debate, a comparison, the exposition of concepts and ideas in a different way from the usual avalanche of soliloquies on social media. Also because, nowadays, debate is rare in this country.

You have to go back a long way in time to find interesting debates. In 2022, Meloni and Letta challenged each other in a live video, guests of Corriere della sera. Director Fontana moderated the event based on a few shared rules. The final result: 90 minutes of dullness that did not change the substance of things. The numbers obtained by Meloni and her party would have arrived regardless.

Only a showman like Silvio Berlusconi could make the history of TV debates in Italy: beyond the dusted chair hosted by Michele Santoro – but that was not a debate between leaders even if it seemed like it -, the duel with Achille Occhetto of the dying is the father of all Italian debates. That was decisive: it showed everyone where Italian politics was going and paved the way for Berlusconism.

If We Really Need a Harris Trump Debate

While the polls are uncertain and show a situation of substantial parity, the anticipation for the debate is at its highest. Despite the desire to attend the debate, one wonders how much these events really matter to the public: political scientists are skeptical.

An analysis published by theEconomist based on academic data shows that debates have never made a difference, not even in 2016, when 84 million viewers watched the first head-to-head between Hillary Clinton and Trump. This happens because those who watch these confrontations are already interested and know who to vote for: no one has to attract their attention, it’s pure entertainment.

But this time it could be different: Harris’s entry into the field, after Trump’s electoral campaign had been “calibrated” on Biden, could be a novelty for voters, as. The undecided are about to decide. Now they have the chance to see everything a little more closely. All we have left is to wait for events, those of others. The chessboard is ready, the pawns are moving: enjoy the view. In any case, knowing who leads the United States concerns us.