we could have a lot of twists and turns.

but right now she's in a trap. these interviews are awful and are killing her chances even though they're with friendly media. but she has no choice but to keep doing them.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5601554&forum_id=2...id#48132836)

I am sure the info Iran hacked from Trump’s campaign will be released in October. Who knows what’s in there.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5601554&forum_id=2...id#48133504)

you can see it in her eyes.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5601554&forum_id=2...id#48133627)

she knows she's floundering.

https://x.com/WarlordDilley/status/1839099394240450588

look at her face and eyes.

she knows she's trapped.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5601554&forum_id=2...id#48133635)

you can see the abject terror in her eyes, she's haunted

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5601554&forum_id=2...id#48133649)

it's amazing she has no answers. why can't they train her to just deliver a few canned answers? maybe she is drunk 24/7, she's always going off on these word salad nothing rants.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5601554&forum_id=2...id#48133652)

I was watching last night with my daughter in the room and a commercial starts in with a soft on crime ad about little girls being raped

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5601554&forum_id=2...id#48133860)

it's really quite the pickle

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5601554&forum_id=2...id#48133681)

The more xanax she takes, the more adderall she needs to take

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5601554&forum_id=2...id#48134153)

i hope she loses, life will be better if she loses, etc. no doomerism.

but the overall structure of relying on women voters to falter, not show up, occasionally vote against the women-bloc, etc., is just a long term loser.

We need to disenfranchise women for any hope of more than minor victories in a losing war

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5601554&forum_id=2...id#48133990)

what does turnout/demos etc matter if they can just fraud decide she "won" with a 2minute graph slideshow on CNN

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5601554&forum_id=2...id#48134023)

without addressing either of these large-scale problems (fraudulent voting, consequences of the 19th), even an election "win" is just some minor reprieve from a larger trend

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5601554&forum_id=2...id#48134034)

Dems could have brokered Gavin in early August, or held a fake primary last spring and got anyone with authentic support.

Make a jet black WOC veep to salvage some of the black distaste at dumping kam

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5601554&forum_id=2...id#48134091)

Beating him will be dependent on how Trump's second term goes and who we put up next.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5601554&forum_id=2...id#48134115)

https://x.com/greg_price11/status/1839034772234055929

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5601554&forum_id=2...id#48135000)

I'm 99% certain that this awful "unburdened by what has been line" is some reflection of some kind of Maoist/Pol Pot "year zero" destroy everything that has come before to open the door for the coming revolution shit, somehow picked up from her parents and after - thoughts?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5601554&forum_id=2...id#48136759)

the problem is that i haven't seen a clear precursor statement by any commies. maybe there is one. and maybe it's a formulation unique to her parents. but my best guess is that the claim remains a plausible possibility rather than an established fact.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5601554&forum_id=2...id#48136805)

(1) there is no evident precursor statement for "unburdened etc", anywhere

yet (2) she obviously attaches enormous importance to this phrase, as she repeats it so often and so reflexively, to the point of having rehearsed hand movements to go with the statement - so it must mean something very important to her

my only way of squaring this is the hypothesis that it was something said regularly in her home, a phrase to which her parents attached great importance in private

it makes sense to me, given her parents' Marxist background, during the 1960s when Mao was all the rage, that this be something Maoist like that the "Four Olds" must be destroyed - or a reformulation of this to camouflage it

but I can't be sure of this, it's just the most plausible hypothesis to me

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5601554&forum_id=2...id#48136811)

she's so awful

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5601554&forum_id=2...id#48136818)

====

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/25/us/politics/kamala-harris-msnbc-interview-takeaways.html

3 Takeaways From Kamala Harris’s Interview on MSNBC

In her first one-on-one cable TV interview since becoming the nominee, the vice president repeatedly dodged direct questions and stuck firmly on message.

Kamala Harris smiling as she walks to Air Force Two.

Vice President Kamala Harris has tended to choose friendly venues for interviews, and has focused heavily on local news outlets or nontraditional news sources.

As Vice President Kamala Harris parses out the details of her agenda, she has favored broad strokes over detailed policy papers. Only recently has she begun sitting for interviews, which have elicited few details about what her presidential administration might look like.

Little about that careful approach changed during a 25-minute interview with Stephanie Ruhle of MSNBC that was broadcast on Wednesday night. It was Ms. Harris’s first one-on-one interview on cable television since becoming the Democratic nominee.

In her discussion with a friendly interviewer, the vice president again presented herself as a champion of the middle class and hit many of the same themes from her pro-business economic speech earlier in the day. She largely avoided direct questions about how she would govern and why some voters remain fond of former President Donald J. Trump’s stewardship of the economy.

Here are three takeaways from Ms. Harris’s interview.

Harris had roundabout answers to open-ended questions.

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.

“If you are hardworking, if you have the dreams and the ambitions and the aspirations of what I believe you do, you’re in my plan,” Ms. Harris said.

She avoided a looming scenario: What if Democrats lose the Senate?

Ms. Harris has been eagerly promoting the big-ticket items on her agenda. A middle-class tax cut, tax increases for the rich and for big corporations. More money for child care and health care.

The economy. We’re tracking where the candidates stand on issues affecting the economy, business and consumers, including Social Security and Medicare. Our economic policy reporters help you understand how the candidates’ policies would affect inflation, interest rates, major industries and the job and housing markets.

This is a key question that hangs over the Harris campaign as Democrats increasingly fear Senator Jon Tester of Montana is in a perilous political situation. If he loses his re-election bid, Democrats would need to flip at least one Republican-held Senate seat to retain control of the chamber — an unlikely prospect given this year’s daunting map for the party.

Ms. Harris skated past Ms. Ruhle’s question about where Democrats would find the money for such proposals without addressing her party’s Senate prospects.

“But we’re going to have to raise corporate taxes,” she said. “We’re going to have to make sure that the biggest corporations and billionaires pay their fair share. That’s just it. It’s about paying their fair share. I am not mad at anyone for achieving success, but everyone should pay their fair share.”

That is an argument she may find herself making to very skeptical Senate Republicans next year if she wins the White House.

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.

Last week, Ms. Ruhle openly showed her preference for Ms. Harris over Mr. Trump during an appearance on Bill Maher’s HBO program. And when she interviewed Mr. Biden in May 2023, Ms. Ruhle did not press him after his stumbling answers and praised him throughout the 14-minute discussion.

So it went with Ms. Harris. Ms. Ruhle joined Ms. Harris in attacking Mr. Trump (“His plan is not serious, when you lay it out like that”) and avoided posing tricky questions about positions Ms. Harris supported during her 2020 presidential campaign or what, if anything, she knew about Mr. Biden’s physical condition or mental acuity as his own campaign deteriorated.

Which is perhaps why Ms. Harris agreed to the interview in the first place.

Reid J. Epstein covers campaigns and elections from Washington. Before joining The Times in 2019, he worked at The Wall Street Journal, Politico, Newsday and The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. More about Reid J. Epstein

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5601554&forum_id=2...id#48137001)

https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2024/10/08/heres-the-reason-kamala-keeps-doing-terrible-interviews-n4933172

Dana Brash: these softball interviews are not moving the needle and they admit they need to move the needle.

https://x.com/EricAbbenante/status/1843391355747438824

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5601554&forum_id=2...id#48183294)