Just for the record, it really is true that sometime soon Kamala Harris is going to have to (a) put up a few policy positions on her website, and (b) start giving interviews to the national media.
It doesn't have to be tomorrow, but it ought to be pretty soon.
Policy position #1: Not Trump; will do the opposite of what Trump does, as indicated by his past, regardless of what Trump says he would do.
I have to agree. She's young and she's not Trump and that takes her a long way. If she can give the anti-bomb-the-shit-out-of-Gaza crowd some hope then she's got the election cinched. After all, when the Hutus were killing the Tutsis in Rwanda the U.S. didn't try to stop it but we didn't load a bunch of machetes onto pallets and ship them over there either.
Yglesias counsels her to keep her policy statements simple, not overly long, and very non-detailed:
https://www.slowboring.com/p/kamala-harris-should-shake-the-etch
Also, Harris needs to be very careful about interviews. No ambushes, please. I find it hard to believe there's a big pool of undecided voters out there who will opt for her over Trump only if she does a minimum number of interviews. There's a lot at stake here.
This seems the wisest, and it is far better to be All Things to Many - and avoid policy statements of the wonky nature the University educated Left so adores - as regardless only a risk factor from both Own Side and from Opposition given the US track record that every Lefty interest group will not hesitate in run-up to jump into activist attacks in short-sighted pressuring.
I agree with Yglesias (and thanks for posting that). I think he gets it pretty much dead on.
But I DO think that there is a significant pool of undecided voters who will vote for her if she does not do too many interviews. In that I think that there are a significant number of voters who were uncomfortable with Trump but found Biden too old and stained by GOP smear. Harris' best path is to simply seem normal, not be too old, and non-radical, with items like Yglesias posted. Until then we will have the VP choice, the Convention, a debate with Trump, and the election will be on us in a flash.
And I think Kamala gets it; she is doing stuff like rolling back her no-fracking comments and denouncing pro-Palestinian supporters who burn the flag.
And I think Kamala gets it; she is doing stuff like rolling back her no-fracking comments and denouncing pro-Palestinian supporters who burn the flag.
She seems to really have the knack. I think perhaps folks were reading too much into her 2019 aborted run. But many presidents have had unsuccessful runs at the White House— as presidential aspirant ir as running mate—who have later gone on to win: FDR, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Biden, Trump...
And she was very successful in California, after all. I'm really starting to wonder if Democrats didn't luck out in the end because of how things went down. IOW, maybe at the end of the day Harris was a better choice than even Whitmer or Newsom or Pritzker or whoever: a political star all along, and we just didn't realize it.
Agreed that Harris so far is showing more than she did in 19, which had me down on her. So maybe we lucked out. Let's hope so because we are going to need a lot to take this. Oh, and if she wins, we also need a good President!
It's a different election and a different era.
It was a crowded primary in 2019-2020. Most of the candidates were wary of the left after seeing the popularity of Bernie Sanders in 2016. Some version of (or a path toward) single-payer health care was a standard proposal. Wealth taxes, universal basic income, intersectionality, green new deal, social justice were all prominent issues in Dem campaigns.
Since then, there's been backlashes to BLM, to woke, to #MeToo, and those issues do not animate Dem politics as they once did.
Biden won. He has been the most progressive president in ages but his message has never been about pushing the edge of what our politics can bear. His message in the 2020 campaign was really simple: to fight for the soul of America.
Harris this year also is building her campaign around a simple theme: freedom.
With the threat of Trump, MAGA, Project 2025, etc., it's a clear place to focus and the message is getting through. I think it's a winner.
Joseph-
While I agree with everything you said I would add that her selection of VP may influence her policy platforms and how she approaches those policies
One thing that has made me think about Mark Kelly is that he's a quiet mover and shaker. BUT the fact that he's retired military (hero), astronaut and from a border state makes me think that Kamala could nominated Kelly and sit back and watch DJT/Vance and the GOP twist themselves into knots trying to penetrate that armor. Shapiro does have rumored things in his past but is very quick on his feet. But after years of Bidens quiet competence is quick on his feet MORE important? I dunno about that.
Harris is winning this portion of the news cycle and we see how that is affecting Trump and the GOP. I think a Kelly nomination would make not only swing state voters more apt to vote for her but also the old guard republicans are going to look at Kelly and say "Hmmmmm, border state Senator, former military officer and hero and not prone to belligerence - I might go for that"
I think all the old guard needs is quiet competence. They are getting sick and tired of Trumps faux outrage.......
I don't disagree in a general sense, but the logistics say more like all in good time-- it isn't even 14 days since she got into this race. Seems like half a lifetime, true, but not really.
There's a lot on the calendar until the convention is over. If I were her, I might be having staff people work out position statements while I'm rolling out the VP pick and using the time between then and the convention to work out details and plan for some big interviews to be done around the convention, maybe one or two in the lead-up.
Of course she's been halfway thinking about this possibility for months and she's inherited the Biden operation, but condensing what's normally at least two years of prep and brainstorming into a few weeks is a lot to deal with.
Besides political obsessives, intellectuals and journalists, who actually cares?
I suppose she will have to in order to respond exactly to this sort of thing, but really rather pointless.
A non-insignificant portion of the Democratic Party both cares deeply about policy and will refuse to vote at all if policies aren’t detailed enough for their liking. The Republicans also have these people of course, but (1) not in as high numbers as Dems do; and (2) they often understand better that the general public doesn’t care much about policies and actively hates their particular policies, so they give their candidates more leeway to hide (or not even make) policy statements during election campaigns. The Dems cannot afford to lose anybody this election; therefore, Kevin is right: Kamala will eventually have to release some detailed policies to appease the intellectuals and political junkies in the Democratic coalition.
This asserted non-insignificant portion only matter if they live in Swing States.
The only thing that Democrats should think about is the geography of the electoral college and the specific sub-national electoral geographies, their demographics and those voters.
Losing some percentages of arch Intelletual eggheads in California, in New York etc does not matter.
The sole thing that matters for you idiots is the bloody voters in the bloody swing-states. Else the world is condemned to the US engaging in self-harm and harm globally with another bloody Trump administration.
If some percentage of swing voters in those specific geographies care, then you should care - but if it is pandering the urbane urban metropolitans of the Democratics university educated activists, packed into sub-national geographies which are going to be won anyway, then you should not bloody care.
(of course anyone in the US Left that is so prissy and self-centred as to need a reason other than Stop Trump to bloody vote, should go fuck themselves)
Can I upvote this about 100 times?
"A non-insignificant portion of the Democratic Party both cares deeply about policy and will refuse to vote at all if policies aren’t detailed enough for their liking."
Your post rests on this assertion, and I see no evidence that it's true. I find it hard to credit the idea that ANY voters won't vote for a candidate without detailed policy positions.
I think Harris needs to hit a few of the key issues that matter most to core Democratic voters and leanders and strive not to offend the middle. That means policies along the lines of the Matt Yglesias suggests.
Democratic voters have shown themselves to be very practical. They've adopted the mantra of former Oakland Raiders coach Al Davis: Just win, baby.
This was shown in 2020. When it came down to Sanders or Biden, who was the first choice of few, everyone got on the Biden Bus.
When Uncle Joe dropped out and endorsed Harris, everyone was soon behind Harris. No messy mini-primary, no back stabbing or purity tests, just coalescing around the candidate.
In Minnesota in 2018 two Dem Gov. Mark Dayton was not running for another term. Factions lined up behind various candidates, and urban Leftie Erin Murphy was endorsed at the state convention. Dem primary voters were not interested their pet policy positions, they rejected Murphy in favor of outstate Congressman Tim Walz. Just win, baby, is what we wanted.
No, they won't refuse to vote at all. The Democratic voters who care about that stuff already know (more or less) what Kamala will stand for, and they know the alternative.
This is not hard.
Exactly, it's not hard to know where things stand.
I think the only discussion is HOW to do the campaign for the best effect. It's pretty old-school stuff.
Focus on the national image and message (in that sense she's doing a good job of copying Obama and Reagan and Kennedy. Party policy positions are well-known and her only reason to go into them is to show she can talk when Trump can't or to highlight particular issues (like abortion) which clearly favor Dems.
“Freedom and Opportunity” was pretty much Reagan-era stuff, and though the Republicans wouldn't have gone for “Equality”, she's a Dem and so “Freedom, Opportunity, and Equality” are important. Those don't take a lot of detail to express.
I like the campaign so far, the party is unified, and if the American people prefer Trump over her, then the entire nation is toast. This isn't Reagan vs Carter, where character, national security, and economic strength were agreed on. No, this is Harris vs a weird old monster.
If the Republicans think there is strength in clearly defining and contrasting Dems and Republicans, they've succeeded, but it should work against them in a very big way this time.
"the intellectuals and political junkies in the Democratic coalition."
Who are these folks going to vote for instead?
She needs policy papers if she wants political obsessives, intellectuals and journalists to talk and write about her policies.
And their audiences are other policy obsessives, eggheads, activitsts, and the like....
The Electorate in the Geographies you need to bloody win gives literally no fucks about these intellectual posturings.
Focus on the bloody voters you need, not the online whingers.
I just can’t imagine anything that needs to change. Everything is working fine.
Preemptive fuck this troll. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and just because this particular comment isn’t very trolly doesn’t mean Justin isn’t still a total monster.
You are obsessed, Austin.
Find something better to obsess about.
Right. Just like you're obsessed with Fredric Brown.
Who is Fredric Brown and how he is supposed to be relevant to anything?
Didn't he write Arena?
Never heard about this story until now.
Still cannot see how this is relevant.
So ... technically she's not even the nominee yet?
And of course she IS currently the VP to the former presumptive nominee and incumbent President, so I'm guessing we can start with the Biden policies? I'd assume any differences would take some time to formulate and elaborate properly on.
And I kinda think this whole VP-nominee thing is a little more important and more urgent, not to mention fundraising and hiring senior campaign staff and and and...
Policy papers. Sigh.
Nah, she needs just four or five main points, and repeat them over and over. The people she needs to reach might only catch her speaking once, on accident, at a bar or the gym or a friend's house.
If she does interviews, which I don't think would be helpful, she should only go back to the same simple talking points with every question. Anything else is just distracts and gets people like us arguing and looking divided.
I think Yglesias is right, but this could be even simpler. Each of these tenets fits nicely under the banners of Freedom, Opportunity, Equality.
Agreed. Like the three banners. She doesn't need to do interviews, or give detailed policy. I'm an intellectual and policy nerd, but all I need to hear is "Let's beat Trump and MAGA."
she should want to do interviews. she's smart, experienced and charismatic. the biggest complaint i've heard about her is she hasn't been visible and voters don't know her, but not that she's become the presumptive nominee and has the spotlight, it seems clear they like what they're seeing. so more high profile interviews is to her benefit.
All she needs is a constant series of rallies based on the BBC Proms. Lottsa flags, music and singing patriotic songs. Kamala doing break dancing.
I don't got show you no stinking policy!!!
Trump's main attack line right now is that he's against laughter, so she doesn't have to say much.
This: D_Ohrk_E1
August 2, 2024 – 10:30 pm at
Policy position #1: Not Trump; will do the opposite of what Trump does, as indicated by his past, regardless of what Trump says he would do.
plus this: dilbert dogbert
August 3, 2024 – 7:27 am at
All she needs is a constant series of rallies based on the BBC Proms. Lottsa flags, music and singing patriotic songs. [Kamala doing break] Everyone dancing.
K.I.S.S. 2024. Enjoy!
Yglesias' suggestions on policy look good. The problem is going to be interviews. Doubt about Biden was buttressed by his lack of serious, non-softball interviews. And doubt about Harris includes the concern that she can't think on her feet and is scared of taking positions on issues (other than repro rights) and speaks in word salad when pressed. So it's going to be conspicuous if she avoids interviews.
Why provide an attack surface? She should put up a minimal statement and update it as needed. You know the Republicans are going to make up some garbage, perhaps whining about the use of capital letters at the start of sentences, and the media and its pundits are going to echo the complaint for months despite grammarians explaining that the first letter in a sentence should be capitalized. Why make it easy for them?
No, she doesn't. She's doing nothing and winning - why change? That's basically all she has to do is do nothing, be boring, and not be an old unhinged white guy.
She doesn't have to satisfy your and every other (entitled) media member's desires to gatekeep.
This is extremely unimportant. This may be disappointing, but it's true.
Keeping the media entertained and giving then something easy to work on is not important.
This won't stop journalistic malpractice, so we can also discard the argument that she must do this to avoid the media turning on her.
Policy nerds wont be influenced to go vote.
There is little harm in this, but there is also little payoff.
Kevin is a wonk and policy is the favorite plaything for wonks. Nothing wrong with that, but policy (important though it is) is not the thing that wins elections.
Policy gets done usually in the first two years of a new Dem presidency (2009-2010, 2021-2022, which both coincided with crises) or not at all. (Tax cuts happen in the first two years of GOP presidents or not at all.) If Harris wins, it'll be interesting to see if new policy gets done. It'll depend on who controls Congress. But priorities will likely be tied to campaign themes of protecting freedoms (codifying Roe, court reform of some manner, etc.). I am not expecting new programs so much, but more about strengthening existing programs. I know foreign policy is often a nonstarter, but I think support for NATO, our alliances, Ukraine are worthy of discussion.
Keep It Simple Stupid!
I'd go with minimalist policy as well. For one thing, the MSM doesn't cover policy at all, it is all horse race and vibes, so why bother? Even theGuardian felt obligated to publish the 1 millionth "Trump voters still love Trump" story probably the laziest journalistic endeavor ever. Contrast with the equally lazy "Biden voters think Biden is too old".
Give women the right to chose again
Protect social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid
Re-institute a rule of law that applies to everybody
and call it a day. The rest of the time should be devoted to exposing the flaws which are myriad in Trump, Vance, and their policies.
Great comments here. I'm totally down - the Matt Y bit is excellent, and "why give them an attack surface?"
kamala harris white paper:
"my main policies are rooted in not being a corrupt lying finger-sniffing sack of shit who urged people to kill the capitol police to overthrow american democracy"
done.
Do you want a future that looks like Star Trek, or a future that looks like Ridley Scott's Alien?
Which one looks like you'd have a better chance?
Because that's your choice.
(though actually the future for Trump voters doesn't look they'd make it as far as Alien).
She's probably wary after that legendarily bad Lester Holt interview, AND she's in a position where almost anything she says is going to pop somebody's bubble. I guess she's running up her wins right now.
Good thing is - this is shark week period. After that convention, no one's going to pay any attention for a few weeks, so she can try walking out on the balance beam and see if she can get it to work without too much risk.
Harris, for me, is a sub running for Biden's second term. Assumption is that she will continue to pursue or revive the policy goals of their first administration. The John Lewis Voting Rights Act, the American Families Plan, and Build Back Better Act come to mind as items I assume will remain on the todo list. Likewise, trust she won't appoint an AG that's another milquetoast like Garland; so looking for some progress just in terms of how she sets up her administration. As far as I'm concerned, she should just stay the course and reinvigorate it. So much of what she may or may not accomplish depends on the Congress she gets.
sometime soon Kamala Harris is going to have to (a) put up a few policy positions on her website, and (b) start giving interviews to the national media.
Please tell me you're not turning blue waiting for that to happen.
Project 2025 is a pretty detailed booklet of policy and personnel ideas for the Trump campaign. You better believe he regrets allowing himself to be associated with it.
A non-insignificant portion of the Democratic Party both cares deeply about policy and will refuse to vote at all if policies aren’t detailed enough for their liking.
It says more about them than it does candidate.
I'm sure in due course there will be plenty of position papers put online for policy wonks to chew over to their heart's content. Luckily Harris is the VP and is tied to the record of the current Administration and its policies, which, if you agree with them, makes it quite easy to vote for her to stay course. Pretty simple, right?
One thing she is doing is jettisoning all the stupid things she came out for in 2019 racing to the left of the party with little ground to stand on. That's smart too. Besides this the priorities for the campaign right now are not position papers, they're setting up the campaign organization (not an easy task considering she's inheriting an operation and is tweaking it more to her liking) picking a running mate and getting ready to run a convention.
I tell you what Kevin, why don't you read the Democratic Party platform as soon as it's approved and you can get all the policy positions you want from that! Hope it's good reading.
I agree with spatrick.