Voting for Kamala: the interviews
Commenter “JohnTyler” observes:
Even in the edited version [of her 60 Minutes interview], Kamala comes across as a stupid, ignorant moron.
I still do not understand how any sentient human could have cast their vote for such an incredibly dumb and ignorant individual; and over 49% of voters did exactly that.
It’s interesting to hear all the reasons, supplied by democrats, why Kamala lost the election. You will note that not one commentator states the obvious; that she is just plain stupid and ignorant.
It is really frightening that someone of her “intelligence” could garner such a significant percentage of all the popular votes.
I think I’ve got an answer.
Harris had a fairly low profile as VP. Only political junkies on the right would have seen some of her inane exchanges, and it was easy to have missed most of her off-the-cuff statements and only seen a teleprompter speech or two, if that.
Most Democrats hate Trump and knew they wouldn’t be voting for him. But a lot of them tuned into the Harris/Trump debate in order to see how it would go. Kamala lied quite a bit during it, but that was the usual propaganda that most Democrats already believed, and other than that she acquitted herself fairly well and Trump was fuming and talking about Haitians eating cats and dogs. So the debate would have only solidified their confidence in their choice of Kamala for president.
So, why waste time watching interviews? I’ve asked quite a few people I know – all of them intelligent – what they thought of Kamala’s interviews, and none of them had watched a single one. And why should they? They’re busy people, Trump was a disaster or Hitler, Kamala was fine and cleaned his clock in the debate, so why waste time watching an interview with only her?
Therefore they simply had no idea how awful she came across. To this day they have no idea, because they certainly weren’t about to watch her interviews after the election.
That may even have been part of the reason Trump sued CBS: in order to expose the entire interview and draw attention to it.
There are LIVs on both sides, but I am convinced it’s a higher percentage on the left that do not pay attention to the details. And the mainstream media is not about to give it to them.
I have a suspicion that the median age of the audience for network news programs is around 70 if not higher. Younger segments aren’t watching interviews given to television journalists because they never do. (I can recall the names of network anchormen from 25 years ago – Brokaw, Rather, Jennings – but I could give you only a spotty account of those who’ve held those posts since. The anchormen of 2000 also held those positions in 1985, IIRC).
There are LIVs on both sides, but I am convinced it’s a higher percentage on the left that do not pay attention to the details.
==
I’ve found leftists who follow public affairs pay intense attention to what you might call ‘news cycle shizz’, a great deal of it depicted in a funhouse mirror sort of way. They’re not interested in actual social conditions or public policy.
Short story is some are willfully ignorant and some are just stupid.
My guess is that a large number of reasonably intelligent Democrat voters damn well knew Kamala was pretty weak and not a particularly good candidate. Not that they would be likely to ever admit so openly in mixed company. But for them of course, this was irrelevent. They were never going to vote for Trump anyway no matter what. So it really was never in their interest to deeply look into her as they sensed it would only depress them without changing anything.
The same could be said for their feelings for Biden. Many of them likely suspected he was less than cogent long before the infamous debate disaster. They just figured that Biden was largely never in full control anyway and that most important decisions where actually being made by others. They trusted that these “others” were the technocrats of the professional managerial class carefully put in place by Obama or whomever. Either way, they had faith in them as smart and good people who would advance their interests.
So the problem with intelligent progressives isn’t so much that they put their trust in Kamala Harris or Joe Biden themselves to be good stewards, rather the problem is that they evidently have so much faith in these unelected bureaucrats to be unimpugnable heroes of the highest intelligence and moral character. They view them in a similar way that a religious zealot may view a high priest or other religious leader.
There’s no room for skepticism of such figures. After all, they went to the best schools and travelled in all the right circles and therefore in the aggregate would always make the correct decisions for the most optimal outcomes. Anything less and they wouldn’t have acsended to such lofty purches. These Democrat voters have faith in the system.
To be a good citizen, one must be informed on voting issues, and thoughtfully consider both sides. One is not excused from this duty because one is “busy”. If someone is too busy to fulfill this duty, he should not participate in politics or voting.
As Franklin wrote:
Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.
https://nccs.net/blogs/articles/only-a-virtuous-people-are-capable-of-freedom
…[Harris] acquitted herself fairly well and Trump was fuming and talking about Haitians eating cats and dogs. So the debate would have only solidified their confidence in their choice of Kamala for president.
–neo
Exactly.
I still say the Trump-Harris debate seriously damaged Trump and if the election were held a week later, I don’t want to think about it.
To be a good citizen, one must be informed on voting issues, and thoughtfully consider both sides.
==
From your mouth to God’s ears.
rather the problem is that they evidently have so much faith in these unelected bureaucrats to be unimpugnable heroes of the highest intelligence and moral character.
==
Nope. The problem is that their motor is their antagonisms and aversions. Doesn’t matter if they are ‘intelligent’ or not. They despise you, want you injured, and make up fantastical stories about what you are or will do to them or to their designated pets.
Not sure if Trump planned his dogs-and-cats segue.
But. The result was massive coverage…… “Hee Hee! You know all those Haitians Trump was talking about who overwhelmed social services, schools, can’t drive worth a lick, intimidate locals? TRUMP CLAIMED THEY’RE EATING DOGS AND CATS!!! STUPID TRUMP.”
Otherwise, the media blackout would have continued.
Given the antics of the interlocutors, Trump held his cool more than I expected, although not as much as might have been useful.
But the primary issue was, Hate Trump, so you vote for the other person. You can’t vote for a stupid person. Thus, Harris is a genius. QED.
To be a good citizen, one must be informed on voting issues, and thoughtfully consider both sides.
There must be some greater impetus for being informed than simply “being a good citizen.” I suggest universal taxation, even if it is sharply progressive. When half the country doesn’t pay any taxes, they will always vote for politicians who promise to give them stuff, for which the rest of us pay.
Kamala who? 😉
Yeah, DEMs have a shallow bench. Didn’t do too bad even running Kamala Who, but that’s about all they had.
Heck, DNC’s new vice-chair is David Hogg – he who is so boring that he had to copy the ‘Greta Thunberg *MEAN* Girl look‘ in order to even get the DEMs to notice him again.
Had wondered recently why I was seeing so much of Stephen A. Smith—since he was a sports television personality, sports radio host, and sports journalist—and I don’t watch sports anymore. Well, he’s been showing up in Political Stuff because he is considering a run for President in 2028!?! THAT’S A REALLY REALLY SHALLOW BENCH!!!
My earlier pick of AOC in 2028 still looks like DEMs front-runner in 2028, and voters were tired of Trump after almost 4-years in 2020.
IMHO, President Trump will need to keep it together for a full 4-years if GOP expects to win again…
I think most of the Dem voters who were paying the least bit of attention knew that Kamala was a bad candidate but at least she wasn’t Hitler. Of course there may have been some low info voters who really never bothered to find out anything about Kamala but she had a high profile going into the 2020 Dem debates. She had her moment in the sun after she implied Biden was a racist in a debate and then her candidacy imploded after primary voters realized she was a terrible candidate.
I don’t think Biden would have done much worse than Kamala had he stayed in the race. There are plenty of Dems who would vote for anybody other than Trump.
@ Neo > “That may even have been part of the reason Trump sued CBS: in order to expose the entire interview and draw attention to it.”
I think that’s the primary reason for many of Trump’s “off the wall” comments and proposals.
In order to complain, the Regime Media has to at least mention the subject.
Of course, they spin, omit relevant facts, and lie, but at least it’s out in the open.
“Short story is some are willfully ignorant and some are just stupid. Chases Eagles
Neo has often shared her perception that many of her friends, who are committed democrat voters are highly intelligent. She has shared a persuasive analysis of their motivations. I think it goes deeper than their individual predilections. At base, people on the left are politically, collectivists and collective-isms by definition requires an incremental slide into the enabling of the ‘chains’ of their future enslavement.
“Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”
Edmund Burke, A Letter to a Member of the National Assembly
@ Art Deco > “Younger segments aren’t watching interviews given to television journalists because they never do”
They are watching Rogan, or Charlamagne, or other “influencers” who are not all unquestioning lackeys of the Democrats (not getting any USAID? it will be interesting to see the final list).
In re the “anchormen from 25 years ago” — that being now 2000!
I found some drinks coasters recently that I gave to most of my friends and family for Christmas: “Someone mentioned how much better things were 30 years ago and I thought, Ah yes, the 1970s, but they meant 1992, and now I need a moment.”