Now that we’re two days past the debate and we’ve had time to process how it went down, it seems like the biggest knock against Harris’s performance was that she didn’t get much of an opportunity to present her plans for the country. Obviously there was good reason for that, but it seems like that is something she still needs to do. Do you all think she should set up one of those national town hall meetings where she would sit down with undecided voters and a moderator to present her plans in a setting where she doesn’t have to worry about attacking Trump? Would this be of any benefit for those few undecided voters out there, or is it too late for something like this to have an impact?
I can’t see how providing voters more information about anticipated policies would be a negative. I can’t imagine such an effort would be likely to net many new voters but fwiw I think it’s a good idea.
I don’t see any need for her to do that. (She and her advisors would know better than I though). No one, absolutely no one, is going to change their vote based on more details on any policy position she takes. She’s for reproductive rights, helping the middle class and protecting Ukraine from Putin. The details are unimportant.
Agreed with the OP and @Cardigan. I wouldn’t care if it was undecided voters only or not but I don’t see how it would hurt. I understand it would be unlikely to lure any hardcore MAGAts to vote for her but there are plenty of other voters. Plus, it could get some people out to vote who may be planning to sit out the election. Getting out the vote is what will really matter this time around.
I also don’t think details matter to most voter - that’s not what would keep them from voting.
However, yes, I do think getting facetime with voters, in any way shape or format* is something Harris needs to do. While much better than a month ago, she’s still the lesser known candidate.
*I don’t mean that quite so literally (maybe not a rigged Hannity interview), but keep trying to reach wider and wider audiences is a good thing.
There aren’t any upsides to a non-interactive town hall with an audience. May as well make a fireside chat video to explain your positions.
An interactive town hall, on the other hand, would have been useful 20 or so years ago before the strident public political assholery became re-emergent on the national stage. Now, the chances for a lunatic Trumpet disrupting the proceedings by pretending to be neutral and then busting out with the insanity is high enough that, while it might help or hurt her a little, it would no longer be a town hall.
The idea came to me because of the post debate comments from “undecided voters”. The theme that I’ve been picking up on is that they would have liked for Harris to go more into details of her plans for what she would do for things like improving the economy.
ETA: Yes, this would to win the vote of a small slice of the electorate, but that’s what we’re down to. It’ll come down to a few undecideds, likely in the suburbs of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.
No. Harris had the enormous advantage of not going through a difficult primary. Although her party is unified against Trump, it contains many factions which can currently project their wishes onto Harris. The party, against all odds, is united. Clarifying her policies will not generally win over those amazingly undecided about Trump nor unconvinced by the debate.
And passing policy in practice will depend on Senate and House results. Better for both her and Walz to campaign locally in places votes really matter and let advertisements do the talking. But by all means, do another debate given fair terms.
I don’t believe for a second that they’re saying. Well, I guess I agree they “would have liked” more details, but I don’t believe it would change anything.
No. Revealing too much detail in your plans just invites people to poke holes in it. Just ask President Warren. She gave enough of herself in the debate while her opponent flung catsup on the walls. Or was it cat soup? And what did she get? A bunch of people going “derrrrrpppp…I don’t know if she’d be good for the economy” as if the halfwit next to her on stage had some magic ability to lower prices and save the pet population.
That’s a good point, and I’m even on the fence as to whether it would help her in this election. It might or might not. But giving specific policy positions will hurt her in the next election, should she win, when the GOP blocks all of her initiatives and then asks “Harris said she’d do X Y and Z and she didn’t. Why did she lie?” When they were the ones to prevent her from doing it.
It could hurt her this election if those who like Sanders feel she should focus more on social issues, those who like AOC feel she should focus more on identity politics, those who like Clinton feel she should be more business friendly, or whatever. All these groups, against all odds, largely feel Harris represents their view at the moment. Sure, articulate broad concepts.
As a voter, I prefer articulated and well-thought policies. As a sensible politician, concentrate on the nitty-gritty and passing these after the election. No need to give Republicans meat for attack ads when they have not thus far done a great job in effectively going after Harris. There is no shortage of information to make a choice so why give the enemy ammo?
That’s a fair point. I hadn’t considered it. It’s all well and good to talk about specifics which are premised upon getting bills passed through two legislative bodies, but don’t mean much when the other party is in charge of one of those bodies and is committed to not allowing the other any sort of legislative ‘win’. I guess this is how we wound up living in the era of executive orders being the substitute for actual legislation.
I agree with your general point. But I’d need a cite on the AOC allegation.
I’m speaking in general terms and acknowledge my examples may be inaccurate. I am also giving my opinion, and my larger argument might be unsound. Democrats united behind Biden because of the alternative and Harris as well, but she has benefited from unusual party unity in a big tent which has often not been unified (although things like the Supremes view of Roe vs. Wade or immunity might also be a factor). There were huge benefits to not going through a bruising primary. On my mind a town hall risks losing these advantages for modest potential gain.
I don’t doubt this. Getting past whether it would actually do anything (even though they said it would), there’s a cost to it. You might lose voters who can now nitpick your words/out of context, etc. So it’s a balance and not always, if I do this, I’ll get more voters or I’ll get these particular undecided voters (without losing others).
So, talk about your general plan and then point them to your website for all the details which is as good as the plan can ever be. I think that’s the proper balance and gets you the most net voters.
Here’s her website with her plans to give you a sense on what she’ll do to improve the economy. If these voters want more details (assuming they ever actually read her website plans), and that’s not an unfair ask, I don’t think it’s worth it to be that pinned down.
I agree completely.
Okay, understood. I just was sensitive to what seemed like a caricature of AOC.
That’s what I was thinking. There are some of her plans that I’d like some actual details on, like how to increase housing supply in a manner that regular people can afford to rent or buy the new units. A ten to twenty minute chat that goes over the essential features of this plan would be just about right.
It would take a bit of work to make, and make it engaging enough to get people to watch. That’s the big limiting factor - can they get it done soon enough to reach enough people to make a difference in voting?
You could make similar chats for other topics. Maybe do a quick poll on the top 3 or 5 issues that people would like her to address, and do those.
Focus on the issues that everyone agrees on.
No one in the Democratic Party is going to attack her for having a plan to increase housing. Or a plan to secure abortion rights. Or a plan to reduce inflation.
If voters are willing to wait two weeks to hear about Trump’s healthcare plan, I don’t think they’ll mind waiting to hear the details on Harris’ plan to secure abortion rights. The important things are the goals, not the details.