I think in general it would be good for Harris to get out there, but town halls are not the right forum. Undecided/low information voters are not going to watch a town hall. She needs to go places where she can introduce herself to voters who would otherwise not know much about her. Go on popular podcasts and you-tube channels. You have got to meet the voters where they are.
I find this a little hard to fathom. The only thing that matters in the next sixty days is Harris getting elected President. If a town hall or a fireside chat helps in this goal, then I’m all for it.
If it’s simply to satisfy some allegedly undecided voter’s desire to hear some more details about Harris’s housing policies, then I think it’s a waste of her time.
I’m reminded of the quote from David Sedaris about undecided voters:
Asking for specific details about Harris’s housing policies is asking how the chicken is cooked.
Well, yes, obviously. Part of the point of showing some of her details is to contrast her to Trump, who has no details at all, and gets antagonistic any time anyone asks him for details. They tried that a few times in the debate, remember, and he refused to even try to answer. Every little bit helps.
But it all comes down to the calculus of time left. Would this be a more effective use of her time, as compared to whatever else she might be planning?
Now I’m thinking, “Stealth debate”: Set up a few “encounters” where someone asks Harris about Issue X, and she gives a decent answer. Then, arrange to ask Trump the same question, and film his reaction. Cut them together into a campaign ad.
You’d have to do all the questions first before using any ads, so that Trump doesn’t get wise to it.
Need to think about more than just the President seat too. It might make a difference to explain some things in some sort of ‘fireside chat’ setting, but where she explicitly details all the parts that require the cooperation of both the Senate and the House, in order to stress that she needs help from the House and Senate so get out there and vote for Senators and Representatives too.
Yes, quite. The entire Republican strategy of “Why didn’t you do that four years ago?” is predicated on lots of people just not understanding how Congress works, and how the Republicans were doing everything they could to block everything Biden and Harris wanted to do. Anything that gets this across to more voters is a good idea.
The Harris team knows the answer to the thread question better than I do.
But Biden did at least two in the 2020 general election season (CNN and ABC). And he won. So I expect she will do at least one.
Questions need to be screened to make sure they are real questions, not statements or insults. And they would be.
She probably should say something about cutting back on some zoning or similar restrictions.
Those reluctant to vote for her say she didn’t give enough detail at the debate, and many sincerely think that. But it might not take too much for them to complain there was too much wonky detail.
Unless we are in the middle of a big recession, everything that costs money has to be part of a package rated deficit neutral, or better, by the Congressional Budget Office. I presume she would pay for her proposals with tax increases on the rich, and that part is, or will be, on one of her web sites. Should this be emphasized on TV or podcasts? Maybe not.
Harris released a fairly detailed housing policy proposal that would include varous incentives for building coupled with a $25K down payment assistance.
Kamala Harris housing plan: Construction of 3M units, down payment support (thehill.com)
I don’t see anything about zoning laws, which are generally a state and local issue that the President would be unable to change easily.
As to the larger question, it actually seems like a good idea. She has been mostly campaigning via rallies which are good for encouraging the base, but that’s not reaching undecided voters. A televised event would do so. Better to hold in mid-October or so. People have short memories.
Say Harris did take a difficult problem, like increasing housing. Comes up with a workable policy that miraculously includes encouraging building of small homes, getting cheaper building supplies, pleases voting homeowners with much income already invested in their home, ignores or solves limited government control of inflation and interest rates, unites state and municipal councils with these federal priorities, is acceptable to banks and lenders, encourages all to work together to put national interests ahead of personal ones and sufficiently solves related employment, infrastructure, tax, unhoused population, medical, social and immigration concerns. Say it really was the best policy ever written. Say it was communicated perfectly.
- This is a far cry from a $25k incentive which may boost boost prices but solve little
- It would still be strongly attacked, fairly and unfairly, both on the policy, every implication and detail, and every related problem
- Most people do not realize good policy
- It would not greatly influence the undecided
- It would not change that many votes
- Getting the policy passed would still depend on House and Senate results
- Harris would be blamed for any changes or failure of others to pass the policy
I’m not saying a town hall might not have merits. I am not an experienced political operative. But the actual upsides would be limited and there are many potential disadvantages. And not that much policy is really great. The time for the town hall might be after winning the election. Harris has done well by limiting hard hitting interviews. But debating again would be wise given fair conditions. If you asked me last year if the Democrats could be strongly united, I would have been skeptical.
Understanding that housing is a problem, saying so compassionately, articulating a few details of a plan… this may be intellectually unsatisfying and is probably not a solution. But it is politically wiser. After all, how did Trump look chewing out his party because despite sixty attempts to get rid of the ACA, they had nothing thoughtful to put in its place?
You exaggerate. Nitwit more like it. What I would like her to have said, in answer to why didn’t you carry out those policies for 3 1/2 years, is that because the Republicans in congress didn’t want them carried out (along with a couple of DINOs in the senate). If those policies appeal to you, you not only need to elect me, but also give me a congress that is more interested in governing than performing.
I don’t think that’s a good faith criticism. Undecideds don’t vote based on specific policy proposals. People complaining about lack of fine print details are republicans looking for excuses to vote for Trump.
This wasn’t a debate. And these televised “debates” certainly aren’t about policy. Most voters don’t want to hear complex details. Some people have political minds and are detail oriented, but prioritizing feeling or emotions over logic is more common. Many depend on few independent sources of information, or simply rate peer opinion or a feeling of belonging more highly than specifics.
During the debate, Harris mentioned her desire for a $6,000 child tax credit and a $50,000 tax deduction for starting up a new small business. Donald Trump said “tariffs” and “concepts of a plan” for health care. So, really, who is it who’s short on details for their policies?
I think Snarky_Kong had it largely right; people saying Harris is short on specifics are just trying to rationalize why they don’t support her yet. Perhaps when they run out of rationalizations, they’ll vote for her.
I noticed that Trump got to choose, in advance, to have the last word in the debate, and he held that “why haven’t you done that already in the last 3 1/2 years” zinger until then. If he hadn’t, it would have been the perfect opening for Harris to bring up the immigration bill that Trump acted to block, and ask Trump about all the things that he failed to do in 4 years as president.
No biggie.
This was said after the final endless commercial break, and was past the scheduled 90 minutes. I suspect few swing/uncertain/low propensity voters were still tuned in.
She shouldn’t get bogged down in specifics. That is a recipe for losing voters. Have the specifics online and refer people to the site. If people are really interested in specifics they can check out the website. Otherwise, they are using this as an excuse to not vote for her and will not be swayed by a town hall.