Kamala gave an interview to a friendly MSNBC reporter …
… and it was still awful. You can see many articles about it: for example this from Legal Insurrection, this at RedState, and this from Ace.
Ace quotes a NY Times: article:
Here are three takeaways from Ms. Harris’s interview.
Ms. Ruhle’s first question was about how Ms. Harris might respond to people who hear her proposals and say, “These policies aren’t for me.” The MSNBC host’s second was about why voters tend to tell pollsters that Mr. Trump is better equipped to handle the economy.
Ms. Harris responded to the fairly basic and predictable questions with roundabout responses that did not provide a substantive answer.
Instead of offering any explanation for why Mr. Trump polls better on the economy — a matter that has vexed Democrats as President Biden has overseen a steadily improving economy — Ms. Harris instead blasted Mr. Trump’s record. She blamed him for a loss of manufacturing and autoworker jobs and said his tariff proposals would serve as an added sales tax on American consumers.
She said nothing about why voters think Mr. Trump and Republicans would be better on the economy.
But she did say her policies are for everyone. …
A hard-hitting Harris interview is still yet to come.
Since Ms. Harris began granting more interviews in recent days, her media strategy has been to sit with friendly inquisitors who are not inclined to ask terribly thorny questions or press her when her responses are evasive.
Nothing about that changed during her interview with Ms. Ruhle before her audience on MSNBC, the liberal cable channel whose viewers overwhelmingly favor Democratic candidates.
It’s not quite clear what Ms. Harris gained, aside from giving her campaign aides the ability to say she held a one-on-one cable television interview.
For the vice president, speaking with Ms. Ruhle was roughly in the same ballpark as Mr. Trump having one of his regular chats with Sean Hannity of Fox News.
Remember, that’s from the NY Times. And no, the Times isn’t withdrawing any support from Harris; the writers there are probably just frustrated that she’s so bad at this. They may labor under the delusion (at least, I think it’s a delusion) that if she were to face more interviewers who actually challenge her, she’d give more persuasive and detailed answers that might sway more undecided voters. There is no indication that’s the case. If Harris had answers to the hard questions, she’d be giving them, instead of mouthing convoluted platitudes mixed with lies.
Those Harris supporters who hate Trump – and that’s most of them – could not care less in terms of their own votes for Harris, which are solid no matter how vapid or mendacious she is. Their excuse – which I’ve seen explicitly stated – is that Trump is worse. Period, end of discussion.
You’re right, Neo; Harris has no detailed or persuasive answers to give.
I was amused when Ruhle asked her how she would pay for all the tax breaks, first-time homebuyer giveaways, and so on, if the Senate is in Republican hands to prevent tax increases. Harris was dumbfounded, and finally stammered that we just have to increase corporate taxes. She’s got no idea of how to get any of her fairy tales into action.
How can word-salad Harris be worse than Trump to anyone who follows the news?
@Cicero:to anyone who follows the news
I’d emphasize this question differently–who is following the news? Besides old people like us. There are people on Youtube and TikTok who have far more viewership than CNN.
I wonder if part of the problem is that people like us still look only to the legacy media and think that’s where most people get their news. I suspect this has not been true for some time.
Kamala is less prepared for the job of POTUS than any major candidate in memory. If it weren’t for TDS and a friendly MSM, she would be looking at a Mondale type drubbing.
I don’t feel the least bit more comfortable about her obvious incompetence. In today’s political atmosphere, it doesn’t seem to matter.
Great nations in history have followed a pattern:
“From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.” – Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the
University of Edinburgh,
We appear to be at the apathy stage.
Precisely because they know their candidate to be so drastically subpar, they frantically portray Trump to be somehow worse. Pity TDS Patient Zero:
Trump Derangement Syndrome Meltdown of the Week — New York Times Editorial Board Fills Its Diaper AGAIN
Poor things.
Its a good question its like klobuchar supporters
Is it just me, or are a few people starting to look at the state of the world and wonder if their Trump hatred is more precious to them than their freedom and security? Just a few, mind you, but it could become a preference cascade, if we’re lucky.
Ray+Van+Dune (8:57 pm), it’s not just you, not by a long shot, and I (for one) think the preference cascade has already begun. The hour is late.
Ray+Van+Dune, M J R:
I’m a fan of the preference cascade myself.
However, I do find current polling data discouraging. Everyone is calling it dead even. Harris hasn’t made any disqualifying blunders yet and her bizarre idiocracy campaign seems to be working or at least not losing.
If the Queen wearing no clothes hides in the forest, so no one sees her, is she truly naked?
Or something like that.