Yes I’d agree with that. I still think that getting a better foothold in online and traditional media is the key factor for the next election rather than the specifics of how Kamala answered questions.
But it’s also true she wasn’t great at hitting back at those attacks. She was playing the old politics; “answer the question you wished you’d been asked”, “focus on the positive message” etc etc. Nowadays the well is thoroughly poisoned and the time might be better spent fighting the (false) premise of the question.
…or maybe I’m just talking crap. Harris did very well in a tough situation. And I don’t think anyone knows how to get the “foothold” I mentioned. Lying and demonizing is both easier to do, and more engaging for more people, so MAGA-like populism is gaining ground in many countries.
You can’t both send out your positive message AND cut the heads off of the hydra. Which attacks do you respond to fully? Which do you ignore? She ignored the McDonalds one and it kept going, but there was really no way to eliminate it since it wasn’t really based on any evidence.
It’s a combination of Brandolini’s Law and Br’er Trump’s liar patch.
There aren’t enough hours in the day to combat the lies and combating the lies is exactly what Trump (et al) wants because then they control the conversation.
Again; I don’t think it was really possible for anyone to defend the lies in the current media environment. When most people have been fed a diet of sinclair media, right-wing memes and podcasters and either the lying MSM (FOX) or compliant MSM. And most people didn’t hear Kamala’s responses to the attacks unedited anyway. I think even Obama would have struggled in 2024.
So job #1 for democrats is to attempt to do something to change that picture.
That said, I hope whoever gets the nomination is better skilled at responding to some of the disinformation. It ain’t easy but yes a strong response can involve challenging the premise of the question, counter-attacking the political opponent and giving a positive message. And take out the personal stories because it seems people don’t care any more.
She didn’t necessarily need to address every attack, or any attack. What should could have done is fill the void with her own narrative. Think about how someone like Bernie Sanders can strongly talk about issues he’s passionate about. That gives people something to focus on rather than any attacks on him. With Harris, she didn’t present that kind of strong passion about issues. There wasn’t much to talk about other than the attacks the Republicans were hitting her with. She was like a sports team with a bland, predictable offense and a weak defense. It didn’t seem like she had a good strategy to get the win and she got pushed back by the Republican attacks.
Well she has decided NOT to run for California governor. The Senate seats already have Democratic incumbents, plus elections won’t be held until 2028 and 2030 for these seats.
But if she runs again and gets the nomination I expect the Republicans to win again.
I can’t imagine she’ll get the nomination, and probably won’t even bother running. Before the GOP went crazy, who was the last candidate to lose a Presidential race and be given another chance? OTTOMH it was Adlai Stevenson in 1956, and that didn’t go well. Before that I’m pretty sure we’d have to go back to the 19th century.
Also, if she was elected in 2028 and then re-elected, she’d be 72 by the time she left office, which I wouldn’t quite say is disqualifying, but I think most Democrats would prefer to go younger.
it does have to be the default, because power is addictive. Democrats who think she would be a strong candidate in November 2028, but weak by 2032, should vote, in the primary, for someone else.
History strongly suggests that it does. When was the last time a President voluntarily chose to retire? And if she runs for re-election in 2032, nobody is likely to want to primary a sitting President – unless she’s done such a terrible job that the Democrats are likely to lose anyway. (see: Ford ‘76, Carter ‘80)
Practically speaking, all presidents are elected to a single 8-year term with an automatic recall initiative at the 4 year point. If recalled, the other party always takes power.
Reality is not quite as absolute as I’ve described, but it’s darn close.
During his nibs’ first administration someone around here pictured Tricky Dick, wherever he is, rubbing his hands with glee. “At last I am no longer the worst President!”
The other night I was watching a YT video on why the US has no high-speed rail. Among the myriad of obstacles was that any kind of a network* takes a multi-decade effort as did the interstate highway system. Four years, or even eight, is enough to get partway through a feasibility study and maybe some preliminary planning then a new administration comes in and either wants their fingerprints on it and starts over or kicks the whole idea to the curb.
*Unlike a single-line like Los Angeles to Las Vegas.