Do we really have the luxury as a nation to both-sides all of this and pick and choose what we “like and don’t like” about Kamala Harris’s interview? Which implies that this is just a normal election? Donald Trump is a convicted felon. Convicted by a JURY. He is an adjudicated rapist. He was found liable for fraud against the state of New York. Last night he slapped hideous and dangerous memes to his stupid app. HOW is any of this NORMAL?? Monday he and his goons and thugs manhandled a female employee of the ANC to take a photo of Trump giving a THUMBS UP behind the headstones of our fallen heroes. WTAF?
Whatever Harris and Walz said is wonderful. I love it. All of it. I’m here for it. Anything, as long as they WIN. And win BIG. The only stackers that seem to really get the abomination that is Trump are Steve Schmidt and Jeff Tiedrich.
Yes! This! Everything about this. Chris is always spot on with his assessments, including this one, but I am at a point where I really don’t care about what she says. She is the only candidate. A normal person. There is nothing she could say that would make me not vote for her. Just as Kamala said, Trump is an unserious man. Or as Chris quoted Jeb Bush, he is a chaos candidate, which equals a chaos presidency. Not only is he a felon, a rapist, and a fraud, but he incited a coup and called for his own VP and members of Congress to be killed! I guess this is all in the name of journalism and reporting both sides, but how does the press not just throw up their arms and say I’m done?
Right on, Julie! I get it that Chris wants Kamala to explain things more, but really, who cares, as long as Trump does not get back in the White House!
Julie, you are right about everything concerning Trump, no question. If I had to wager, I would say that Chris knows all of this and the unique danger that Trump presents. I think people do want to know more about Harris, including me. Specifically, I am curious how her position on fracking changed between 2019 and 2020. Like Chris, I want to know more, and I could find myself conversing with someone to whom I could offer insight.
Tiedrich is awesome, and I enjoy reading him for his humor. Schmidt is doing good work, and I support him, but for me, it can get a little anxiety-inducing to read daily how fascists are overrunning the country. Both
I think in the space Chris inhabits, he cannot afford to be nakedly partisan and maintain a certain neutrality that is necessary to thrive long-term. He cannot be a Harris cheerleader, but on that, notice whose speeches he dissects. He is absolutely exposing the craziness of Trump without adding, “Make sure to vote for Kamala!”.
One more thing - people read this stuff, perhaps members of Team Harris. It is entirely possible for these conversations to filter upward and to help shape the campaign’s approach. I'm talking about folks like those at The Bulwark, Nate Silver, Chris, etc. Our conversations here can do the same.
Yes, Julie, we do have that luxury. Not all of us have made up our minds about Kamala Harris. This post had nothing to do with Trump. I still see this as a normal election. I feel like the liberal commentsphere is a nonstop infomercial trying to sell me vibes. Thank you, Chris, for the reporting.
I agree with you that there are many conservatives and Republicans that can’t stand Trump, but they willingly created this new normal. They are clearly willing to tolerate him to preserve a conservative governance and judiciary in an increasingly progressive electorate. I really don’t think they see him as a threat to democracy. Congress has the authority to remove him if necessary.
Are you referring to the handful that left the party or politics altogether and the 13 members of Congress who voted to impeach/convict him?
I was here. The GOP bent over backwards to justify his actions to preserve their conservative agenda and keep the base happy. Would they now choose Trump over the Constitution? I don’t think so.
Look, I’m not a Trump supporter, but I support the will of the people. If Trump wins at the ballot box, that’s democracy.
Those are just liberal talking points. Lots of Americans see this as the new normal. I personally don’t like Donald Trump, but he’s a legitimate nominee to be president. He has a lot of support.
Chris as for the “turning the page” statement she did clarify and say it dates back to when Trump came on to the scene bringing his vitriol and nasty nicknames to politics
Exactly. That was my reaction as well. I agree with Chris that the "my values haven't changed" answer was too pat, but she absolutely did clarify what she meant here.
Agree, except for #3 on the negatives. She clarified that she was talking about the undercurrent of negativity since TFG shoved his hideous self into the mix.
I didn't watch the interview but I noticed Gretchen Whitmer had trouble explaining her flip flops on MTP.
I think there's an answer on fracking where she can say she had concerns about fracking and its impact on the environment but there are ways to do it safely, so what she's calling for is banning unsafe fracking.
What she said is better. She’s committed to the green new deal but that a transition to green energy can occur without banning fracking but by incentivizing clean energy and training for clean energy jobs. She made perfect sense to me. We have to move forward if we want a livable planet
Chris, as to the "my values haven't changed" thing. It is easy for her to still feel the same way about medicare for all being something she things every human being deserves simply by virtue of being a human being (that is her value that hasn't changed) but being in government long enough now to have figured out that is not workable or sustainable. Same with fracking. She still may feel it is environmentally unsafe or whatever she feels about it that has to do with her sense of responsibility for the environment (again a value) but after doing the work to understand the necessity of it she has made the decision that she would not ban it. That doesnt mean the responsibility (value) for the environment she feels has changed, just that she is able to hold some things in tension and see that more than one thing can be true at once. How nice to have a person running who is literally a critical thinker instead of a transactional crazy person.
Why the heck does a grown person have to defend or explain changing their mind on something? Stuff happens, things change, we learn. And yes, we compromise sometimes to reach those who also have their interests.
I thought they did a good job. Agree with the three things you liked and most of the rest of her answers. My feeling on her changed opinions is “kinda what she tried to say” that she had strong ideas until she had a lot more information (once you are in that kind of position-VP) that made her think about it again. Smart and intelligent answer. Still the best candidate and still has my full support.
The answer on why running has a follow up later in her answers where she basically says that the stain of DJT has been in our country’s politics even when he wasn’t in office.
For 6 of the years in the last decade either Obama-Biden or Biden-Harris were in the White House. I suppose her point that it is time to turn the page on that decade is valid in that context.
As to the fairy tale that there wasn’t even a scintilla of indication of Biden’s severe intellectual decline for her to notice, she does have one legitimate defense. That is that the claim that she was always the last person in the room in deep discussions with Biden as critical issues were considered is bogus. That too is a fairy tale. This poor woman, who until 4 months ago was regarded as a drag on Biden’s reelection prospects, didn’t engage one on one with Biden for even 15 minutes a week. Biden thought little of her and Dr. Jill doesn’t like her at all.
Agreeing to have a Republican in the Cabinet is a good idea. I think she’s a flip flopper and phony. That doesn’t mean I won’t vote for her, but I’m not impressed. And I dislike Walz even more. The Wash Post opinion piece on him today was devastating.
I will repeat what I mentioned yesterday, what we saw in the debate was a rapid decline, FOR US, because we have not seen him in while in a pressure situation, but someone like Harris who I assume worked closely with Biden, if it was a slow decline it is very possible it could have easily been missed
Harris is a great politician. Answering those questions that help her, not answering those questions which don’t. No one is going to ask Trump about his shifting policy positions lol which makes a mockery of the idea that the US still has objective, intelligent media. The subtext of this election is really about avoiding a sectarian war by electing the politician who still believes in democracy. Because make no mistake, if Trump wins I can’t see Americans living in peace. Can you?
Do we really have the luxury as a nation to both-sides all of this and pick and choose what we “like and don’t like” about Kamala Harris’s interview? Which implies that this is just a normal election? Donald Trump is a convicted felon. Convicted by a JURY. He is an adjudicated rapist. He was found liable for fraud against the state of New York. Last night he slapped hideous and dangerous memes to his stupid app. HOW is any of this NORMAL?? Monday he and his goons and thugs manhandled a female employee of the ANC to take a photo of Trump giving a THUMBS UP behind the headstones of our fallen heroes. WTAF?
Whatever Harris and Walz said is wonderful. I love it. All of it. I’m here for it. Anything, as long as they WIN. And win BIG. The only stackers that seem to really get the abomination that is Trump are Steve Schmidt and Jeff Tiedrich.
Yes! This! Everything about this. Chris is always spot on with his assessments, including this one, but I am at a point where I really don’t care about what she says. She is the only candidate. A normal person. There is nothing she could say that would make me not vote for her. Just as Kamala said, Trump is an unserious man. Or as Chris quoted Jeb Bush, he is a chaos candidate, which equals a chaos presidency. Not only is he a felon, a rapist, and a fraud, but he incited a coup and called for his own VP and members of Congress to be killed! I guess this is all in the name of journalism and reporting both sides, but how does the press not just throw up their arms and say I’m done?
Right on, Julie! I get it that Chris wants Kamala to explain things more, but really, who cares, as long as Trump does not get back in the White House!
YES. Exactly this.
Julie, you are right about everything concerning Trump, no question. If I had to wager, I would say that Chris knows all of this and the unique danger that Trump presents. I think people do want to know more about Harris, including me. Specifically, I am curious how her position on fracking changed between 2019 and 2020. Like Chris, I want to know more, and I could find myself conversing with someone to whom I could offer insight.
Tiedrich is awesome, and I enjoy reading him for his humor. Schmidt is doing good work, and I support him, but for me, it can get a little anxiety-inducing to read daily how fascists are overrunning the country. Both
I think in the space Chris inhabits, he cannot afford to be nakedly partisan and maintain a certain neutrality that is necessary to thrive long-term. He cannot be a Harris cheerleader, but on that, notice whose speeches he dissects. He is absolutely exposing the craziness of Trump without adding, “Make sure to vote for Kamala!”.
One more thing - people read this stuff, perhaps members of Team Harris. It is entirely possible for these conversations to filter upward and to help shape the campaign’s approach. I'm talking about folks like those at The Bulwark, Nate Silver, Chris, etc. Our conversations here can do the same.
Yes, Julie, we do have that luxury. Not all of us have made up our minds about Kamala Harris. This post had nothing to do with Trump. I still see this as a normal election. I feel like the liberal commentsphere is a nonstop infomercial trying to sell me vibes. Thank you, Chris, for the reporting.
This is not a normal election. Where have you been? Donald is not a normal candidate. A government led by him is not going to be normal.
This election is about stopping Donald. Period.
There are so many conservatives and Republicans that don’t agree that these are “just liberal talking points .”
The dictators and tyrants of history and the world had mass support but they would not be normal in the USA.
I agree with you that there are many conservatives and Republicans that can’t stand Trump, but they willingly created this new normal. They are clearly willing to tolerate him to preserve a conservative governance and judiciary in an increasingly progressive electorate. I really don’t think they see him as a threat to democracy. Congress has the authority to remove him if necessary.
The Republicans I’m talking about do not tolerate him. They are ashamed of him being a Republican.
Congress remove him? Were you here for the two impeachments?
Are you referring to the handful that left the party or politics altogether and the 13 members of Congress who voted to impeach/convict him?
I was here. The GOP bent over backwards to justify his actions to preserve their conservative agenda and keep the base happy. Would they now choose Trump over the Constitution? I don’t think so.
Look, I’m not a Trump supporter, but I support the will of the people. If Trump wins at the ballot box, that’s democracy.
Those are just liberal talking points. Lots of Americans see this as the new normal. I personally don’t like Donald Trump, but he’s a legitimate nominee to be president. He has a lot of support.
Chris as for the “turning the page” statement she did clarify and say it dates back to when Trump came on to the scene bringing his vitriol and nasty nicknames to politics
Exactly. That was my reaction as well. I agree with Chris that the "my values haven't changed" answer was too pat, but she absolutely did clarify what she meant here.
Agree, except for #3 on the negatives. She clarified that she was talking about the undercurrent of negativity since TFG shoved his hideous self into the mix.
I didn't watch the interview but I noticed Gretchen Whitmer had trouble explaining her flip flops on MTP.
I think there's an answer on fracking where she can say she had concerns about fracking and its impact on the environment but there are ways to do it safely, so what she's calling for is banning unsafe fracking.
What she said is better. She’s committed to the green new deal but that a transition to green energy can occur without banning fracking but by incentivizing clean energy and training for clean energy jobs. She made perfect sense to me. We have to move forward if we want a livable planet
Chris, as to the "my values haven't changed" thing. It is easy for her to still feel the same way about medicare for all being something she things every human being deserves simply by virtue of being a human being (that is her value that hasn't changed) but being in government long enough now to have figured out that is not workable or sustainable. Same with fracking. She still may feel it is environmentally unsafe or whatever she feels about it that has to do with her sense of responsibility for the environment (again a value) but after doing the work to understand the necessity of it she has made the decision that she would not ban it. That doesnt mean the responsibility (value) for the environment she feels has changed, just that she is able to hold some things in tension and see that more than one thing can be true at once. How nice to have a person running who is literally a critical thinker instead of a transactional crazy person.
Very well said, Kay!
Why the heck does a grown person have to defend or explain changing their mind on something? Stuff happens, things change, we learn. And yes, we compromise sometimes to reach those who also have their interests.
I thought they did a good job. Agree with the three things you liked and most of the rest of her answers. My feeling on her changed opinions is “kinda what she tried to say” that she had strong ideas until she had a lot more information (once you are in that kind of position-VP) that made her think about it again. Smart and intelligent answer. Still the best candidate and still has my full support.
The answer on why running has a follow up later in her answers where she basically says that the stain of DJT has been in our country’s politics even when he wasn’t in office.
For 6 of the years in the last decade either Obama-Biden or Biden-Harris were in the White House. I suppose her point that it is time to turn the page on that decade is valid in that context.
As to the fairy tale that there wasn’t even a scintilla of indication of Biden’s severe intellectual decline for her to notice, she does have one legitimate defense. That is that the claim that she was always the last person in the room in deep discussions with Biden as critical issues were considered is bogus. That too is a fairy tale. This poor woman, who until 4 months ago was regarded as a drag on Biden’s reelection prospects, didn’t engage one on one with Biden for even 15 minutes a week. Biden thought little of her and Dr. Jill doesn’t like her at all.
I have a question, why was Kamala seated so that she seemed so much lower than Tim?
That was weird!
Kamala is 5'4". She's pretty tiny. I don't know Walz's stats, but I am guessing he's about 6 feet tall. I think that explains it.
Most office chairs are height adjustable via recently invented mechanisms.
While short she isn’t tiny.
5'4" is tiny in my book. What other explanation do you have? A plot to diminish her? Geez.
Tiny isn’t just a function of height and she’s only slightly shorter than average at that.
don't try to hide who she is - you just imagine the fake Fox News outrage if there was "a CNN MSM plot" to seat her higher than the Coach.
Agreeing to have a Republican in the Cabinet is a good idea. I think she’s a flip flopper and phony. That doesn’t mean I won’t vote for her, but I’m not impressed. And I dislike Walz even more. The Wash Post opinion piece on him today was devastating.
I will repeat what I mentioned yesterday, what we saw in the debate was a rapid decline, FOR US, because we have not seen him in while in a pressure situation, but someone like Harris who I assume worked closely with Biden, if it was a slow decline it is very possible it could have easily been missed
Seems very far fetched at best
Harris is a great politician. Answering those questions that help her, not answering those questions which don’t. No one is going to ask Trump about his shifting policy positions lol which makes a mockery of the idea that the US still has objective, intelligent media. The subtext of this election is really about avoiding a sectarian war by electing the politician who still believes in democracy. Because make no mistake, if Trump wins I can’t see Americans living in peace. Can you?
Chris, I thought her saying that her values haven’t changed was a very strong point.
I’m surprised that is confusing to you. For contrast, can you understand what it meant if Donald said his values haven’t changed.
That would be a head scratcher.
Nuff said. Let’s turn the page stop with the both sidesism.
George Stephanopoulis is right. This is not a normal election. Stop being a Peggy Noonan
syncophant.
The audio was fine.