CNN says Kamala Harris thumped Donald Trump in their debate last night. In their flash poll, 63% said Harris won vs. 37% for Trump. The Washington Post says this is the fifth biggest victory out of 25 debate polls dating back to 1984. Perhaps even more interesting is that Harris's favorability rating shot up six points while Trump's fell two points:
It's a little mysterious to me why Harris continues to avoid interviews. It's obvious that she's perfectly good at them, so why not do more? Perhaps they seem like a no-win proposition: a good performance doesn't help but a bad performance can hurt. Still.
A good one helps less than a bad one hurts, but appearing like you are afraid to talk to the public hurts far more.
She should be getting in front of a wide variety of audiences.
Who says she appears to be afraid to talk to the public? She just did it for 90 minutes last night. What world do you live in?
Not to mention the fact that, it’s not as if she has to go on Fox News. She could simply do softball interviews with thoughtful liberals if she liked!
I am glad she waited until this very public humiliating of Donald Trump.
Before, every question the press asked her would be framed with the assumption he was dominant in this election.
She laid that chestnut to rest last night, and now the press has to rejigger their narrative to include a woman who shows up prepared and executes competently.
Pun intended. Trump's DOA.
She appears in front of a wide variety of audiences every day. She just won't talk to the FTFNYT. Which she is right to do. They are trash.
The campaign is apparently planning for her to do many more interviews in the coming days - concentrating on swing-state local media.
I think the primary reason she hasn't done so many yet is a simple one of time - God knows she's had a lot to do the last several weeks.
The campaign is apparently planning for her to do many more interviews in the coming days ...
That's good to hear.
I think most of the pushback on the idea of more interviews comes from the understandable distrust of large swaths of MSM journalism, and their obsession with bending over backwards to be "fair" to MAGA.
But nobody who wants Harris to win is saying she shouldn't be maximally careful about whom she interviews with. That's the thing about being a major party nominee: you can pick and choose, because everybody wants to do an interview. Do Colbert. Fran Lebowitz. Jennifer Rubin. Yglesias. Maddow. Oprah. Bob Costas. Hell, I think she could easily handle the likes of Joe Rogan.
The point is, when you're in a tight race, it makes sense to be aggressive and take prudently calculated risks. She has the opportunity to secure a solid (if not huge) lead, I think, and increasing her profile (one advantage Trump possesses is name recognition) is one way to do that.
The interesting thing is how thoroughly Kamala got under his skin. Directly challenging his crowd size really hurt him. It will be interesting to see how he tries to get over that. Doing his own spin he was claiming he won by 90% to 10%. Wow.
“ Doing his own spin he was claiming he won by 90% to 10%.”
If it’s good enough for Putin ….
Here are some comments about how she got under his skin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJjld1OSKxU
She won't do interviews because Trump is old news and 90% of the political press corps are crazy for some feather in their cap at her expense which might give them cred with wingnuts.
right
and the nytimes writes pieces on undecideds complete with quotes that they're looking for more policy specifics so that *hint hint* maybe she needs to sit down and be garroted by the nytimes hit squad
just ask hillary, she knows all about that shit
and one thing you know with dead certainty is that undecideds are the most uninformed of all voters and they're not the least bit interested in detailed policy questions except for maybe 'will there be a giant tax cut for me?'
but yeah, let's pretend undecideds all read the nytimes and might be persuaded to vote for harris after they do their hatchet job
“… pieces on undecideds complete with quotes that they're looking for more policy specifics ..,”
I’ve seen that in other articles, and I do find it interesting that these folks want only Harris to give policy specifics.
the 'more details' camp strikes me as trump voters who are embarrassed that they're voting for him
also, i've never seen an article asking undecideds about j6 and whether it was ok for trump to try to ignore the will of the voters
i'm guessing that if they're undecided they must be ok with it
and if they say 'not a big concern', follow up and ask if kamala harris, as VP, is also free to negate the election results
then get the popcorn and watch their tiny brains explode
That's code for don't trust liberals, usually. Because Trump has no policy since he disavowed Project 2025.
They need an excuse to vote either way. Any excuse really. If you're undecided at this point in the game you have either been in a coma for the last eight years or you were dropped on your head as a baby one too many times.
Some talk about what undecideds are interested in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJjld1OSKxU
Not just NYT, Also Reuters.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/some-undecided-voters-not-convinced-by-harris-after-debate-with-trump-2024-09-11/
If Harris is asked stupid questions in an interview she has the skills to crush the hapless interviewer and leave them in a crumpled pile.
Undecided voters don't like the media. Republicans relentlessly work the refs by attacking the media. It works for them, it would work for Harris.
Nobody cares about interviews except pundits and journalists.
Gotta appease the same professional journalistic class that's obsessed with finding Kamala facts to check so that they can both sides her.
They only want her because it earns their outlet money, either by the interview or by searching for gotcha moments to use to maintain false equivalence in the race, so that their punditry, aka opinion columnists and editors, can earn more clicks about why the race is close.
Besides, Trump abuses them (most of them, anyway) and they (mostly Maggie) love it. So why not let them self-indulge in the masochism they prefer in the first place?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Also, ~36% is Trump's floor and ~47% is his ceiling. Anything outside of this is probably noise.
Maybe they are growing tired of his shtick. It's possible. I grew tired of it at about... when did he come down the escalator?
You were late to the party then. 😉
Honestly, I never gave him much thought prior. He was New Yorks problem.
36%? Try 46%. The guy's support is sticky as hell - minds are mostly made up about him, so his real number isn't moving much either way. Her challenge is to rise far enough above his ceiling to win in an unfavorable EC environment. And she has to do it with a pool of remaining undecideds are temperamentally conservative and apt to prefer the known quantity over the relative unknown. Various aspects of Harris's identity are likely to give these voters pause as well, so she has to deal with that too.
Also, don't kid yourself that more specifics are going to help her in a meaningful way. The request for more specifics is infinitely regressive (you can always demand more), and in many cases, it's just a little white lie that voters tell themselves to justify voting for Trump because the deep recesses of their lizard brains are telling them that immigrants are scary.
nytimes:
Tuesday’s televised clash between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald J. Trump drew 67.1 million live viewers, according to Nielsen, outdrawing Mr. Trump’s debate in June with President Biden by 31 percent.
He gave himself a 53 point boost when saying he won 90 to 10. He knows he lost. Everyone knows he lost. But he has to say he won and by a large margin. His ego is that fragile. It's why he can't admit losing in 2020. As he would say... SAD!
I don't get it either. Harris can think on her feet, she is extremely telegenic, and as the underdog she needs to get out there as much as possible.
It may be presumptuous to say what we think she ought to do. She’s doing perfectly well without our advice.
That said, I’d suggest one or two town halls with both her and Walz. One CNN, one MSNBC. She’s good talking with voters. Showcase that.
Elsewhere, she could do interviews with local media in swing states. That’s the best way to reach voters she most needs to reach.
Likewise, lots of rallies in places that matter. Expand the map too.
Yes, take questions from press on the campaign trail. Short events, once or twice a week.
But a lengthy interview in the hallowed offices of The NY Times? No. I truly believe she’d be better off going on Fox.
To think the Times can give her a fair shake and not try to take her down a notch or two is foolish.
There was a time what the Times did with coverage was critical and candidates needed to play their game. That’s not true today.
The Times doesn’t have the same impact anymore. Its editorial this week, virtually an endorsement of KH, basically said Trump was disqualified. It did not make a ripple in “the discourse.” A popular singer posted that she’s voting for KH, as expected, and it’s what everyone is talking about, while 300,000+ new voters registered during the next few hours.
KH should talk to NYT & other mainline media after the election and before she takes office. No sooner.
town halls are fine
local news could be a problem if they're owned by the likes of sinclair or some other right wing outlet
Terrific opening sentence.
Towards the end of your post I find myself wondering if Kamala should do an interview with Taylor Swift. Nobody cared about Musk's vanity project with Dementia Don, but that interview might break the internet.
That would be something.
Me, on Wednesday: "...she could do interviews with local media in swing states. That’s the best way to reach voters she most needs to reach."
News, on Thursday: "VP Harris will begin a more aggressive phase of campaigning ... More interviews, w battleground press in coming days & NABJ next wk."
She may have just decided that news interviews are not a good use of her time. She has a lot to do and not much time to do it in. Most interviews aren't helpful. Experienced pols like Harris know how to deflect questions reporters ask and instead devise questions of their own devising. Now that I'm retired, I watch quite a few TV news interviews and very few are worthwhile. Jonathan Swan might conduct a useful interview and maybe Geroge Stephanopoulos. Other than that, not much there.
You don’t think Rachel Maddow could do an interesting interview? How about Jennifer Rubin? How about Oprah Winfrey? How about Paul Krugman (The latter of whom now has a podcast)?
The voters she needs to convince do not watch Maddow or read Krugman. Oprah could be a thing, but is Oprah even a thing herself at this point? I genuinely don't know.
Taylor Swift, for the win.
Persuadable voters see clips, though, and may read the coverage of the interviews written by journalists. I don't think Harris should be doing interviews to specially persuade reachable voters on policy specifics.
Rather, she should do interviews to dominate the media cycle, raise her profile, and close the name recognition gap with her opponent.
I just marvel at the 40%..........
Is there a single voter in America who can honestly say they were unsure about voting for a candidate until they saw them interviewed by some journalist? Interviews are the source material for attack ads; the politician doesn't exist who can avoid saying anything that will be selectively edited and taken out of context to make them look bad.
Let Kamala get media coverage for being out on the campaign trail, not for "gaffes" and "misspeaks" and "walking things back" in conversations with journalists eager to create a sweet, sweet "viral moment".
"It's a little mysterious to me why Harris continues to avoid interviews. "
Ah the mysteries of life. If only someone had a clue?
You should check with that guy called Kevin Drum. He may be onto something.
"I guess you have to find something to balance the fire hose of Trump lies"
At this point direct advertising may be Harris's best strategy. The ads can say what she wants without distortion by the media. People say they don't like attack ads, but they obviously work since politicians use them. Harris's attack ads would not necessarily involve any lies or exaggerations, just telling the truth about Trump, which the media avoid doing.
I heard an ad for her today. And it wasn't an attack ad. And it wasn't asking me for money. It was basically offering a hopeful vision for what America could be.
Kevin,
Please see your very next post for the answer to your question.
A thought popped into the pea brain. She is making the media come to her. She can set the rules now. Before the debate the media thought they could set the rules.
As many of the commentators have said, the press can't be trusted these days. The factchecking from the debate shows it. And the interview Kamala and Tim had showed how vapid, at best, press interviews are.
What is your opinion of this GOP/Trump lie about you?
When you were in 2nd Grade, you said that Mickey Mouse was great, but these days you never mention him. Can you explain the flipflop?
Why don't you release the text of the bill to fulfill your promise to make things better?
I actually dated a Haitian immigrant and these pussy-eating stories are hurtful and untrue.
--grey delisle
https://x.com/GreyDeLisle/status/1834026006761668967
"Perhaps they seem like a no-win proposition: a good performance doesn't help but a bad performance can hurt. Still."
Considering what she has achieved in eight short weeks or so, I would defer to her judgment for setting priorities.
See your post immediately after this one. She knows the political press hates Democrats.
To echo almost everybody above, what will she gain from allocating time to prep for, and give, interviews to national media? Recent accounts emphasize that she wants to be thoroughly prepared for whatever she does, and that takes time and attention. Walz likes to say "we'll sleep when we're dead," but that's just a figure of speech and a day still only has 24 hours.
There have been, like, priorities since July 21-- veep, convention, debate, rallies to gain local volunteers and media coverage. Her staff peeps understand national-media perspectives and priorities, some from their own work in that media and others from years of dealing with them. So she listens to them, and to her own sense of what she should be doing with the few hours before November 5.
So let's invert, and ask this: what has she or the campaign done since July 21 that has actively harmed her chances of winning? And "missed chances" don't count-- harping on them is armchair-quarterbacking at best. No second-guessing until somebody can actually identify an affirmative clanger.
"It's a little mysterious to me why Harris continues to avoid interviews. It's obvious that she's perfectly good at them, so why not do more?"
For the debate, I expect Harris did her homework and seriously and carefully prepared. Would a good interview take as much preparation?
Her first interview was “lackluster”.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/03/opinion/harris-trouble-debate.html
“But a week after her speech, on Aug. 29, Harris faced her first real test — and, I’ve come to conclude, she fumbled it badly.”
So there you go. It makes little sense to give interviews or press conferences.
Her answers didn’t convince the closet trump voters (aka undecided) to change. In the next election I’m going to pretend I’m undecided and get myself interviewed by the Times and CNN. What a joke.
None of this matters. Trump still plans to steal the election. It’s why he only talks to his Nazi supporters now. Every word he says makes perfect sense to them
Before the debate, Harris was 'anointed,' the underdog to Donald Trump's alpha male.
Now, nobody thinks Trump is the alpha male in the race, do they? After the way she washed the floor with him, he's looking more and more like the poster boy for the Incel Underground, for all the silly men that women won't date because they're bossy bores.
Harris's campaign says she'll do more interviews now, including with non-traditional media. So guess what? Her strategy of waiting until after dominating Trump has paid off.
The media has to change the underlying assumptions used to structure the narrative of the race, from Trump dominant to Harris able to dominate Trump.
These days interviews are more an opportunity for media to feed their need to be relevant. Not required these days to learn about a candidate.
Debate prep was doubling as interview prep. Now you'll see more interviews.
The press in the US is center-right, but believes itself to be center to center-left. They’re concerned with keeping public servants honest, but they give folks like Trump a pass because he’s difficult and uncooperative. Oh, and he’s a gold mine for the business side of journalism.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-harris-second-2024-presidential-debate/&ved=2ahUKEwjM3e-p2b6IAxXWg4kEHe0LBFoQFnoECA8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw2lTTpxwB0HYyZi2JSEAj4h
He's too much of a coward.