So far so good on the interview both are doing well.
I’m a bit impress at how they can answer questions and deflect questions. vp did well at deflecting a question about trump and his musings on her ethnicity. Both are good at the “shut down, not bog down”.
State a fact and move on.
Yes, both did well. Clear answers to Bash’s questions.
I also liked her response to the question about Trump and his musings on her ethnicity. Basically, she wasn’t going there at all. “Next question, please.” My guess (and that’s all it is) is it’s that her ethnicity has nothing to do with the election, so she refuses to discuss it.
Good interview, overall.
I saw about 5 minutes of it, followed by 10 minutes of commercials. Then it demanded I put in who my TV provider is, so that was the end of that.
I watched. I thought they both did very well.
Some talking head on CNN claimed that she was, “obviously lying” when she had no regrets in backing Biden, and she was still saying he is strong. Talking head insisted that all Americans, “know,” that Biden is weak, incompetant, whatever it is he assumes we all agree with him on. We must all know she’s lying and we’re all going to be offeneded by her dirty lie. About the President she is still serving with, and who is still running the country. I mean really, what was she supposed to say? [Yeah, I really regret supporting that doddering old goat.]
Jeez, talk about stupid expectations. Will we see more of this sort of specious criticism of her?
I do not expect it to abate the slightest bit. The MAQAts are terrified of her, will blort endlessly against her and will try to “raise the heat”. Most likely they will appear increasingly desperate and lose ground.
Yes, but that was then and this is now. Liz Cheney is not a friend to Democrats no matter how she acted in regards to Jan 6th. Heck, she’ll vote for Trump again. Kinzinger? Maybe, but I’d still say no, unless it’s shown that doing it significantly improves her chances.
So? It’s a bad idea now. No, screw’em, unless there’s an overwhelming benefit.
Yeah, I don’t get this one at all. People really need to look at voting records. Liz Cheney’s issue was she still had some principles. She still voted and strongly supported MAGA almost all the time otherwise. The enemy of my enemy may be a temporarily convenient ally but should not be automatically accepted as a friend.
Rather than a (what would be considered a borderline extremist in a normal country) former Congresscritter, find a (actually) moderate Republican from a non-competitive district or currently retired, if one can be found at all who will serve.
But that’s looking way into the future. Win the election first, have some general principles in mind for who you might want to tab, but don’t feel beholden if no acceptable candidates can be found.
First the benefit - a Harris administration has the chance to chart a path forward our country politically in an era that can try to put the politics of Trump behind us and that can try to marginalize the far Right populist politics he mastered. There is IMHO an overwhelming benefit to having a less extreme GOP empowered, and to having some bipartisanship and cooperation as a norm to be aspired to. Healing the wounds of the Trump era may sound naive but it is still desirable. Bringing some of your opposition on to your team and giving them a voice is often an effective tactic.
Second, there are many cabinet positions that someone of the right can serve without major threat to a center left agenda, especially given that they are always serving the goals set by their boss. Having their perspectives heard is not the same as their being allowed to implement their perspectives. Defense even may be a good fit but you also have Housing, Treasury, Transportation, Homeland Security, Veterans Affairs … and center right Secretary may be better able to bring a few center right Senators and Representatives to the correct side of a close vote.
The benefits are significant, both in the broad mood of our country going forward and to actually achieving an agenda given a Congress that may be difficult to get legislation through.
Just curious if anybody watched the Harris/Walz interview on CNN last night? I saw some excerpts this morning, but I didn’t see enough to offer an opinion on it.
i watched, they both did well.
She shut down that question about (paraphrased):
“Donald Trump said you only now are ‘turning black.’ What do you say to that?”
Kamala said, “Typical tactics. Next question, please!”
Better than that. According to NPR:
HARRIS: “Same old, tired playbook.” [Pause] Next question, please.”
An old, tired playbook from an old, tired man. She didn’t call him that directly – but it’s in there.
Thanks, I should have looked it up.
that was awesome. don’t get bogged down, just state facts and move on.
You make some good points. The Republican in question would be burning some bridges of course.
And placing herself above playing identity politics. I am of the strong belief that if she tried to get Black men in particular to vote for her on the basis of her identity as Black it would backfire. But having an old tired white man play the attack on race card will get them supporting her more.
That link is a “water is wet” story – of course wealthy donors are trying to convince her not to raise their taxes. It would be a shock if they weren’t.
I saw that. It’s a familiar right wing attack these days. Harris was part of the “cover up” about Biden’s condition. Trump was right all along about sleepy crooked Joe. And now she won’t come clean about it. Can’t trust that woman.
And you’re right, he seemed to think that this line of attack was so good that it would sink her candidacy.
Here’s some math on that, if you believe the Morris/528 model has some value.
Right now, their model gives the presidency to Harris for 58 out of every 100 runs. Their model gives Pennsylvania to Harris for 55 out of every 100 runs (link below).
So, for 3 out of every 100 runs, she does indeed win the presidency while losing Pennsylvania (feel free to correct my math if necessary).