Hey everyone. Rather than respond to an individual comment here or there on this post, I wanted to offer a few thoughts about the reaction in the comments section to this piece -- and anything perceived as negative I write about Kamala Harris or Democrats.
So, a few things:
1. I am not a Democrat. Or a Republican. I am not a political activist or a partisan. I spent 20+ years in the mainstream media, doing my level best to be fair and transparent. That is what I aim to do here. I may not always achieve it. But it's always my goal.
2. I write about what interests me. What I think is worth digging deeper on. What I think politicians should do -- and should not do. I do NOT write things because they will be good for Democrats. Or good for Republicans. I write them because I am interested in them. Period.
3. The idea that I am not critical of Donald Trump (when he deserves it) or that I am "rooting" for him to win is utterly ridiculous. A look through my archives disproves such a theory. I will call out (or praise) a candidate when I think they deserve it. That decision has ZERO to do with what party they represent.
4. If you want someone who is going to tell you that Kamala Harris is perfect or that Donald Trump is evil -- or vice versa -- every day, there are a WHOLE lot of people on Substack (and the broader Internet) who will do that for you. I am not one of them.
5. If your bar for subscribing to this newsletter is that you MUST agree with everything I write, you should not subscribe. I can guarantee you that you won't always agree with everything I write. I think of that as a strength of this newsletter, not a weakness.
Thanks, as always, for reading, listening, commenting and subscribing.
Hey Chris, I super agree with all your points. But today’s post on wanting a deep dive on Harris explaining her changing positions just comes off as a “media bubble” post.
Most folks on either side just aren’t that interested in why she changed. They’re focused on what she’s saying now. And as i stated in an earlier comment, her position changes to be more middle of the road are exactly what you’d expect in a general election candidate for president and so it’s completely unsurprising that that’s what we’re getting now because that’s the way politics works in the United States.
I understand that you are trying to be factual and fair. But I come from the position that Trump is a direct threat to our system of laws under the Constitution. He has abrogated any agreement with the public that requires equal treatment by the press. Therefore trying to treat him as deserving of any kind of impartiality is a disservice to the country. When Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the civil war he said, "Are all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?" I suggest that this situation is not much different. This man is a convicted felon, an adjudicated rapist, a serial liar, and has been indicted for trying to overturn an election. Why would anyone who wants this country to continue to be a democracy not do whatever they can to make sure he is not elected a second time? And if that means the media needs to hammer him and build up Harris to ensure his defeat then so be it. We will survive that, but a Trump victory in November may have much more serious and longer lasting impacts.
"if that means the media needs to hammer him and build up Harris to ensure his defeat then so be it. "
This also strengthens Trump since his supporters that claim he is being treated unfairly will be proven correct, and it risks drawing voters on the fence to his side. Is a country whose dominant media has become blatantly partisan better than Trump? That's a tough argument to make.
Have to disagree. Polls show a majority of voters now think he threatens the country. People being exposed to the contrast between him and Harris are moving toward her. And as to the media becoming partisan I argue that at this time taking a stand against Trump is actually the right thing to do and is no way comparable to the existential threat he poses.
Lincoln also said it’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt. I think the handlers of VP Harris are very familiar with this quote.
At this time I don't plan on voting for either Harris or Trump. When they interviewed Harris after the Biden/Trump debate I thought she did very well in a very tough impromptu situation. She spoke up and did not come off like a fool.
If that's her potential she should be out there showing it. I'm not sure what to make of her using the hiding in the basement strategy. Maybe the advice of her handlers isn't that good..
I mean but Chris how can you honestly in good conscience say you're not partisan when just a few days ago Trump was all over the place on Abortion, you didn't say a word about it and now you're persistently asking his opponent(Harris) to explain her changing positions. That's NOT a neutral or independent stand. It's a PARTISAN position.
Nobody says Harris is perfect (angel) and Trump a devil. We just ask that you stay true to who say you are.
I hope and pray that we remain civil, courteous , friendly and funny in calling you out when we think you are not living up to your self professed independence and Neutrality.Afterall, it's just politics.
You're welcome to have opinions that Kamala Harris should do this or that. I have opinions on that, too, and if she loses, I'll have even more.
I think the problem is, like a lot of Democrats, I'm puzzled. How could someone as flawed as Trump be chosen as his party's standard bearer three times, and become President once, possibly even twice? And maybe that's something that you as an analyst could help illuminate. What is happening? Yes, Kamala Harris should release her medical records. (Sorry, I nearly fell asleep typing that sentence.) But how one of the world's great democracies could elect such a horrible human is a far more important question.
Chris--I have no issue when you challenge Kamala, she needs to introduce and explain herself to the public. However, we are living in a time of personality, if Trump can flip-flop in a matter of days on abortion, why can't Harris change positions in matter of years? Trump is running on his persona and so is Harris to a point. If its good Trump its got to be good Kamala. I do think the country is again looking for change, looking for someone to act like a leader and provide hope. Lets see what happens at the debates should the moderators challenge either of them on their positions.
Well, I imagine that in the morning when you were combing your hair, you must have thought "it has been a while since I triggered my Democratic readers.". I have no expectation for you to root for anyone, as a Hungarian, I have no direct stakes in the election, still, I think what you wrote about Kamala Harris was provocative to the extremes and could be torn to pieces as a home assignment for a Politics 101 essay. I have no problems what you wrote about Kamala Harris' position from a factual standpoint; however, as an opinion, it was such an amateurish attempt to interpret the situation that I simply refuse to believe that this is your genuine point of view. You have been around for ages, you must know how these things work.
So this pretty much boils down to that fact that you find it interesting (and column-worthy) that Harris hasn't sufficiently explained (to your satisfaction) her evolution on various topics during the five weeks she has been running for President. Yet you, like about 95% of the main-stream media, have no interest in examining in greater detail the +/- 30000 lies and false promises put forth by Trump during the past nine years. Got it. Thanks for the explainer.
You imply Harris deserves less criticism because she's only had five weeks in the spotlight to explain her views but that's actually why her burden is correctly higher and also why the vast middle is more interested.
We've had 10 years of constant exposure to see the arc of Trump, his truth and his lies, and decide where he really stands both in terms of characters and his real positions. Vocal camps have reached widely divergent conclusions, leaving a middle with more nuanced views and concerns. But even if the millionth article on this well-trodden history excites vocal hyperpartisans that hope or fear it will help Trump, it will be ignored by the vast persuadable and even unpersuadable middle because it's just boring and repetitive. Your "+/- 30000" hyperbole implicitly admits that; the die is cast.
The middle vaguely remembers Harris's 2019 run but she fizzled before they got interested. Her profile shot up as Vice President but she flopped so badly in several early outings that she was either forced into hiding by Biden's people or went voluntarily. And now there's 60 days left to figure out whether she's the 2019 California liberal, the 2021 Harris that hasn't been to Europe, or the 2024 moderate savior from another bizarro Trump term. Large camps have decided (or don't care), but the middle will settle on a view that's, again, more nuanced. There's no way Harris can be as scrutinized in a few months as Trump was in 10 years, but if the middle feels like they can't reliably form that nuanced view because she's still trying to hide with the help of the media, they probably won't show up for her.
I have difficulty seeing how anyone can conclude that Chris has "no interest in examining in greater detail the +/- 30000 lies and false promises put forth by Trump." He has covered Trump's lies at length. In fact, he has mentioned those 30,000 lies--and linked to the supporting Washington Post fact checker--many times.
Kamala has indeed evolved and changed her positions over many years, as you are constantly reminding us.
Over years. Not days, or weeks, or months.
Years.
You have been very personal with us regarding your changes since being laid off by CNN.
Contrast that with DonOld changing his position on the Florida abortion ballot question at least 3 times in the last week.
He was for it and then he was against it and then he was for it but not voting against it. In the space of a few days. Days, not years.
How about his position on Ticktock or electric cars? Put some bucks in his pocket and he'll do a 180 degree turn and he'll pivot so fast he'll leave skid marks. Promise to give him millions and he'll sell out the entire environment to the oil companies.
C'mon Chris, the attention on Kamala and giving Donnie a pass for far worse behavior is really sad.
Trump is now saying he’s going to legalize marijuana and he tried to flip on his view on abortion because he’s losing the vote of women, but he had to flip-flop again when the Christian Nationalists weren’t happy.
Remember when he said he was going to back up unions and he hired non-union workers to pose as union members for the cameras?
And then he interviewed and laughed about when Elon Musk fired employees that were talking about unionizing.🤔
What Trump says he will do depends on what group he is talking to at the time 🤦🏼♂️
Kamala is the ONLY choice. She will preserve our Democracy.
That's why I love wearing this funny Kamala t-shirt everywhere I go 👇
Really sad indeed. This guy( Chris)was radiosilent when the Cult leader was flipflopping all over his stand on Abortion a few days ago. Now the same guy is accusing Harris of changing her positions on issues.
Chris, how about asking Trump what his core values are in politics before you continue to harras Harris about her changing positions on her policies.
In politics, politicians preach to their bases in the primaries and then move to the center in the General Elections. I am sure you know this too. But Chris I'm not completely surprised that you have started criticizing Harris. That's what you always do when someone dares to take on the Cult leader. Remember Chris Christie, Ron DeSantis, Mike Pence and Nikki Haley. It's fine to criticise politicians but the criticism should be fair and objective. This your persistent criticism of Harris is not fair nor objective period
I got no problem with Chris. He's doing his job. We're doing our job by pointing out the inconsistency. Dollar for dollar, Chris is the best political analyst out there today.
It's not the only issue but it is the KEY issue, which is why conservatives like Judge J. Michael Luttig and former Congresswoman Liz Cheney have announced they're voting for Harris despite any policy differences they may have.
When David Duke ran against Edwin Edwards for governor of Louisiana, plenty of people voted for Edwards even though they know what a terrible person he was. Even GHW Bush endorsed Edwards! One would think it would be the same here: I mean Trump isn't David Duke, but he's far too close for comfort, and Trump is even awful in ways that Duke wasn't. (Duke conceded, for one.)
So, yes,, it's great that Kamala Harris isn't Donald Trump—Trump is excellent person not to be—but as we've saw in 2016, that's not enough. It should be, but it's not.
Woah! Enough with the personal and nasty responses to Chris. I don't like it when Chris points out that my candidate has weaknesses either, but if he sees these inconsistencies, you can be sure as heck that other people who are less enamored with Kamala do too. In order to win this election, the Harris-Walz ticket *must* pick up more right-leaning voters in swing states. And like it or not, VP Harris needs to explain the policy flips in a more convincing way than repeating "my values haven't changed" during the upcoming debate. I read Chris' work because he makes me think, not because he always tells me what I want to hear.
Very well said! Chris just doing his job and doing it very well! It’s ridiculous how people on the left take it when a hint of truth is stated about their candidate. Why all the vitriol?
Stunner! She’s adjusted her Policy positions to be more mainstream as she needs to appeal to the general electorate to actually win the election!
That is the standard advice given for primary candidate winners when running in the general election for president.
And the positions she is taking now actually have a better chance of becoming law, versus what she was running on in 2020, since they are more in the middle.
And I know you know all this, Chris, so why the big push to really dig into the “reasons” for the changing of her policy positions?
As you know, the key reality of this election is that Kamala Harris is not Donald Trump and comes off as a reasonable, likable person that can be trusted to govern in a rational manner.
A pattern of actually seeking to heal the hyper partisan division in the country by taking more moderate stances? Or noting that one races was a democratic primary and the other is a general election?
I don’t think that there’s going to be any healing of partisan divisions anytime soon.
This is an existential struggle for the future of our democracy. There is no “middle ground” or “opportunities for dialogue” to be had. Either we remain a democracy, or Trump and his family will rule the country for the foreseeable future.
I believe MAGA is somewhat less than the 43-7% that may vote for the Republican candidate. By that I suggest that that line is vulnerable to either reason or just exhaustion from always being in battle mode.
So, Chris, tomorrow you’re going to do a good run down of trump’s changing positions too - going back to when he was pro-choice and supported Hillary Clinton?
I echo Rocket Master Man. This obsession with K's changes without mentioning T's years and years of positionless shifting seems like an ad feminam attack.
Harris has changed positions. She should address the changes the way Trump addresses his, which he never does. Please do a column that lists every major position Trump has changed, similar to this column on Harris. It is beyond rational to ask one candidate to be scrupulously honest while the other lies several times a day. Thank God she’s not stupid
She's stated her current position which is all that a politician really owes the voters for them to make their decision. She doesn't owe you any further explanation.
Show me a candidate that has never changed any position and you’ll be looking at either a liar or a fool.
No, Chris, Kamala Harris does not have to explain her position changes to YOUR satisfaction. Everyone knows why she changed positions on fracking, Medicare-for-all, the Green New Deal and “mandatory” gun buyback (I’ll get to the supposed “change” about the stupid wall in a second).
It’s called POLITICS. The stances she took five years ago, in a Dem primary with Bernie-ism still smoldering are much different than a general elections in 2024.
Shock of all shocks, in both parties candidates try to appeal to primary voters for that party which tend to be the most ideological.
In general elections they rush to the “center”.
Nothing new. Nothing to be alarmed about. NO mystery.
Back to the “wall”. This is a silly inclusion in examples of “change” or “confusion” as to what she believes.
There is a HUGE difference between the position that she (and almost all Democrats then and now) are against Trump’s 2,000 mile wall that in 2018 Trump REJECTED a deal that would have allocated $25 BILLION.
That is what Kamala was talking about in 2019 and as she said, 100% accurately, “Trump’s border wall is just a stupid use of money. I will block any funding for it.”
$650 million as part of a much more comprehensive bi-partisan deal is not only not in the same solar system as $25B, it’s a smart compromise that she SHOULD “express support” for.
We need leaders that are MORE prone and open to “compromise”…not the “compromise is weak” and disqualifying in today’s radical right wing GOP.
Hilarious. Simply hilarious. VP Harris holds the same policies as former Pres. Trump. Whatever the voters who are within ear shot want to hear. The contortion by democrats on this is Cirque du Soleil worthy!
So, Chris, since you’re totally ignoring the economic policy that the Harris-Walz campaign put out a week before the convention (sorry, did I miss an article?), how about you outline and analyze for us what the Trump-Vance policies are?
That could be *really* useful for all of us, particularly those that are “undecided”, instead of the incessant “XX Things Trump Said. Whoa boy.” articles that (mostly) don’t enlighten us much, other than the comedic value…
Well, it’s pandering on *both* sides for the votes of hospitality workers in the swing state of Nevada, and I don’t think it’s great policy for the national as a whole.
And Trump’s latest turn against Republican “small-government” governance will add another $6T to his deficit over 10 years, after he already increased the national debt by $8.3T in his first term (per the Penn Wharton Budget Model analysis: shame he didn’t learn anything about economics when he audited classes there…). Just like Romney claimed that Obama was trying to bribe voters with “gifts”, Trump is blatantly throwing out ANYTHING he can in half-baked “promises” (and I’m being generous with the “half-baked” comment) in transactional “deals” to fool the not-so-educated among his base and the undecideds into thinking he had actual policies. Remember how he was going to replace the Affordable Care Act with something “much better”, or a major infrastructure deal in “two weeks”? Right!
Oh, but not *you*, @dutchmaga! You see through the blatant pandering and lack of real policies, from 2016 to 2020 to 2024, right?
While it would be nice to know more details about what Harris believes, I see that Liz Cheney is going to be voting for Harris because of the danger to our democracy that Trump poses. Says it all.
As to health records, well, let’s see. Trump “had bone spurs” in the 60’s so he didn’t have to go to Vietnam, and maybe get shot and then be a sucker and a loser. Beyond that, when he was booked into Fulton County jail, he was able to self-declare 6’3” and 215 lbs - about the same as Muhammad Ali in his prime. Oh yes, and he was declared by his doctor to be such a physical specimen that he should live to be 200.
All this to show that there’s no point in even asking for his records - it would all be a bunch of BS.
Hey everyone. Rather than respond to an individual comment here or there on this post, I wanted to offer a few thoughts about the reaction in the comments section to this piece -- and anything perceived as negative I write about Kamala Harris or Democrats.
So, a few things:
1. I am not a Democrat. Or a Republican. I am not a political activist or a partisan. I spent 20+ years in the mainstream media, doing my level best to be fair and transparent. That is what I aim to do here. I may not always achieve it. But it's always my goal.
2. I write about what interests me. What I think is worth digging deeper on. What I think politicians should do -- and should not do. I do NOT write things because they will be good for Democrats. Or good for Republicans. I write them because I am interested in them. Period.
3. The idea that I am not critical of Donald Trump (when he deserves it) or that I am "rooting" for him to win is utterly ridiculous. A look through my archives disproves such a theory. I will call out (or praise) a candidate when I think they deserve it. That decision has ZERO to do with what party they represent.
4. If you want someone who is going to tell you that Kamala Harris is perfect or that Donald Trump is evil -- or vice versa -- every day, there are a WHOLE lot of people on Substack (and the broader Internet) who will do that for you. I am not one of them.
5. If your bar for subscribing to this newsletter is that you MUST agree with everything I write, you should not subscribe. I can guarantee you that you won't always agree with everything I write. I think of that as a strength of this newsletter, not a weakness.
Thanks, as always, for reading, listening, commenting and subscribing.
Chris
Hey Chris, I super agree with all your points. But today’s post on wanting a deep dive on Harris explaining her changing positions just comes off as a “media bubble” post.
Most folks on either side just aren’t that interested in why she changed. They’re focused on what she’s saying now. And as i stated in an earlier comment, her position changes to be more middle of the road are exactly what you’d expect in a general election candidate for president and so it’s completely unsurprising that that’s what we’re getting now because that’s the way politics works in the United States.
I understand that you are trying to be factual and fair. But I come from the position that Trump is a direct threat to our system of laws under the Constitution. He has abrogated any agreement with the public that requires equal treatment by the press. Therefore trying to treat him as deserving of any kind of impartiality is a disservice to the country. When Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the civil war he said, "Are all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?" I suggest that this situation is not much different. This man is a convicted felon, an adjudicated rapist, a serial liar, and has been indicted for trying to overturn an election. Why would anyone who wants this country to continue to be a democracy not do whatever they can to make sure he is not elected a second time? And if that means the media needs to hammer him and build up Harris to ensure his defeat then so be it. We will survive that, but a Trump victory in November may have much more serious and longer lasting impacts.
"if that means the media needs to hammer him and build up Harris to ensure his defeat then so be it. "
This also strengthens Trump since his supporters that claim he is being treated unfairly will be proven correct, and it risks drawing voters on the fence to his side. Is a country whose dominant media has become blatantly partisan better than Trump? That's a tough argument to make.
Have to disagree. Polls show a majority of voters now think he threatens the country. People being exposed to the contrast between him and Harris are moving toward her. And as to the media becoming partisan I argue that at this time taking a stand against Trump is actually the right thing to do and is no way comparable to the existential threat he poses.
Lincoln also said it’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt. I think the handlers of VP Harris are very familiar with this quote.
At this time I don't plan on voting for either Harris or Trump. When they interviewed Harris after the Biden/Trump debate I thought she did very well in a very tough impromptu situation. She spoke up and did not come off like a fool.
If that's her potential she should be out there showing it. I'm not sure what to make of her using the hiding in the basement strategy. Maybe the advice of her handlers isn't that good..
I mean but Chris how can you honestly in good conscience say you're not partisan when just a few days ago Trump was all over the place on Abortion, you didn't say a word about it and now you're persistently asking his opponent(Harris) to explain her changing positions. That's NOT a neutral or independent stand. It's a PARTISAN position.
Nobody says Harris is perfect (angel) and Trump a devil. We just ask that you stay true to who say you are.
I hope and pray that we remain civil, courteous , friendly and funny in calling you out when we think you are not living up to your self professed independence and Neutrality.Afterall, it's just politics.
You're welcome to have opinions that Kamala Harris should do this or that. I have opinions on that, too, and if she loses, I'll have even more.
I think the problem is, like a lot of Democrats, I'm puzzled. How could someone as flawed as Trump be chosen as his party's standard bearer three times, and become President once, possibly even twice? And maybe that's something that you as an analyst could help illuminate. What is happening? Yes, Kamala Harris should release her medical records. (Sorry, I nearly fell asleep typing that sentence.) But how one of the world's great democracies could elect such a horrible human is a far more important question.
Folks really go over the edge when you say anything negative about their candidate, very thin skinned. I’m very concerned for them on November 6th
Keep calling balls & strikes Chris!
Great points! That is the reason I happily subscribe to your Substack and why I always enjoyed watching you on CNN or reading anything you wrote.
I do wish that she would state her policies more firmly, but I think it is fair to say that she could have a change in her thinking.
I am looking forward to next week’s debate and I hope she hammers Trump soundly!
Chris--I have no issue when you challenge Kamala, she needs to introduce and explain herself to the public. However, we are living in a time of personality, if Trump can flip-flop in a matter of days on abortion, why can't Harris change positions in matter of years? Trump is running on his persona and so is Harris to a point. If its good Trump its got to be good Kamala. I do think the country is again looking for change, looking for someone to act like a leader and provide hope. Lets see what happens at the debates should the moderators challenge either of them on their positions.
Well, I imagine that in the morning when you were combing your hair, you must have thought "it has been a while since I triggered my Democratic readers.". I have no expectation for you to root for anyone, as a Hungarian, I have no direct stakes in the election, still, I think what you wrote about Kamala Harris was provocative to the extremes and could be torn to pieces as a home assignment for a Politics 101 essay. I have no problems what you wrote about Kamala Harris' position from a factual standpoint; however, as an opinion, it was such an amateurish attempt to interpret the situation that I simply refuse to believe that this is your genuine point of view. You have been around for ages, you must know how these things work.
Yesterday, you wrote how the Republican party was not normal. Welcome to the future of America under Democrats.
So this pretty much boils down to that fact that you find it interesting (and column-worthy) that Harris hasn't sufficiently explained (to your satisfaction) her evolution on various topics during the five weeks she has been running for President. Yet you, like about 95% of the main-stream media, have no interest in examining in greater detail the +/- 30000 lies and false promises put forth by Trump during the past nine years. Got it. Thanks for the explainer.
You imply Harris deserves less criticism because she's only had five weeks in the spotlight to explain her views but that's actually why her burden is correctly higher and also why the vast middle is more interested.
We've had 10 years of constant exposure to see the arc of Trump, his truth and his lies, and decide where he really stands both in terms of characters and his real positions. Vocal camps have reached widely divergent conclusions, leaving a middle with more nuanced views and concerns. But even if the millionth article on this well-trodden history excites vocal hyperpartisans that hope or fear it will help Trump, it will be ignored by the vast persuadable and even unpersuadable middle because it's just boring and repetitive. Your "+/- 30000" hyperbole implicitly admits that; the die is cast.
The middle vaguely remembers Harris's 2019 run but she fizzled before they got interested. Her profile shot up as Vice President but she flopped so badly in several early outings that she was either forced into hiding by Biden's people or went voluntarily. And now there's 60 days left to figure out whether she's the 2019 California liberal, the 2021 Harris that hasn't been to Europe, or the 2024 moderate savior from another bizarro Trump term. Large camps have decided (or don't care), but the middle will settle on a view that's, again, more nuanced. There's no way Harris can be as scrutinized in a few months as Trump was in 10 years, but if the middle feels like they can't reliably form that nuanced view because she's still trying to hide with the help of the media, they probably won't show up for her.
I have difficulty seeing how anyone can conclude that Chris has "no interest in examining in greater detail the +/- 30000 lies and false promises put forth by Trump." He has covered Trump's lies at length. In fact, he has mentioned those 30,000 lies--and linked to the supporting Washington Post fact checker--many times.
Kamala has indeed evolved and changed her positions over many years, as you are constantly reminding us.
Over years. Not days, or weeks, or months.
Years.
You have been very personal with us regarding your changes since being laid off by CNN.
Contrast that with DonOld changing his position on the Florida abortion ballot question at least 3 times in the last week.
He was for it and then he was against it and then he was for it but not voting against it. In the space of a few days. Days, not years.
How about his position on Ticktock or electric cars? Put some bucks in his pocket and he'll do a 180 degree turn and he'll pivot so fast he'll leave skid marks. Promise to give him millions and he'll sell out the entire environment to the oil companies.
C'mon Chris, the attention on Kamala and giving Donnie a pass for far worse behavior is really sad.
Trump is now saying he’s going to legalize marijuana and he tried to flip on his view on abortion because he’s losing the vote of women, but he had to flip-flop again when the Christian Nationalists weren’t happy.
Remember when he said he was going to back up unions and he hired non-union workers to pose as union members for the cameras?
And then he interviewed and laughed about when Elon Musk fired employees that were talking about unionizing.🤔
What Trump says he will do depends on what group he is talking to at the time 🤦🏼♂️
Kamala is the ONLY choice. She will preserve our Democracy.
That's why I love wearing this funny Kamala t-shirt everywhere I go 👇
https://libtees-2.creator-spring.com/listing/votek
I have that shirt too! Unfortunately, I live in a very red military town. I haven't figured out if I'll wear it in public yet.
Really sad indeed. This guy( Chris)was radiosilent when the Cult leader was flipflopping all over his stand on Abortion a few days ago. Now the same guy is accusing Harris of changing her positions on issues.
Chris, how about asking Trump what his core values are in politics before you continue to harras Harris about her changing positions on her policies.
In politics, politicians preach to their bases in the primaries and then move to the center in the General Elections. I am sure you know this too. But Chris I'm not completely surprised that you have started criticizing Harris. That's what you always do when someone dares to take on the Cult leader. Remember Chris Christie, Ron DeSantis, Mike Pence and Nikki Haley. It's fine to criticise politicians but the criticism should be fair and objective. This your persistent criticism of Harris is not fair nor objective period
I got no problem with Chris. He's doing his job. We're doing our job by pointing out the inconsistency. Dollar for dollar, Chris is the best political analyst out there today.
Absurdity. When does Chris ever give Trump a feee pass?
Kamala Chameleon is hoping to make it to the election without being questioned on this (or anything).
No, Chris should criticize her. If she's really a better candidate and a better person, she should be held to higher standards.
I have no problem with Chris criticizing her. He's a political analyst, not an activist. That said, I don't think he's giving Trump a pass.
If?
If??
If???
She’s not…..
She’s not a rapist. Why oh why isn’t that good enough?
The only position that Kamala Harris needs to have is “I’m not Donald Trump”.
Everything else is trivial when the existence of our democracy is at stake. Democracy versus Fascism are the only issues on the ballot this year.
It's not the only issue but it is the KEY issue, which is why conservatives like Judge J. Michael Luttig and former Congresswoman Liz Cheney have announced they're voting for Harris despite any policy differences they may have.
When David Duke ran against Edwin Edwards for governor of Louisiana, plenty of people voted for Edwards even though they know what a terrible person he was. Even GHW Bush endorsed Edwards! One would think it would be the same here: I mean Trump isn't David Duke, but he's far too close for comfort, and Trump is even awful in ways that Duke wasn't. (Duke conceded, for one.)
So, yes,, it's great that Kamala Harris isn't Donald Trump—Trump is excellent person not to be—but as we've saw in 2016, that's not enough. It should be, but it's not.
HRC tried that, please do again!
Woah! Enough with the personal and nasty responses to Chris. I don't like it when Chris points out that my candidate has weaknesses either, but if he sees these inconsistencies, you can be sure as heck that other people who are less enamored with Kamala do too. In order to win this election, the Harris-Walz ticket *must* pick up more right-leaning voters in swing states. And like it or not, VP Harris needs to explain the policy flips in a more convincing way than repeating "my values haven't changed" during the upcoming debate. I read Chris' work because he makes me think, not because he always tells me what I want to hear.
A measured response. Kudos to you!
Very well said! Chris just doing his job and doing it very well! It’s ridiculous how people on the left take it when a hint of truth is stated about their candidate. Why all the vitriol?
Stunner! She’s adjusted her Policy positions to be more mainstream as she needs to appeal to the general electorate to actually win the election!
That is the standard advice given for primary candidate winners when running in the general election for president.
And the positions she is taking now actually have a better chance of becoming law, versus what she was running on in 2020, since they are more in the middle.
And I know you know all this, Chris, so why the big push to really dig into the “reasons” for the changing of her policy positions?
As you know, the key reality of this election is that Kamala Harris is not Donald Trump and comes off as a reasonable, likable person that can be trusted to govern in a rational manner.
A pattern of actually seeking to heal the hyper partisan division in the country by taking more moderate stances? Or noting that one races was a democratic primary and the other is a general election?
Surely you see this, Chris
I don’t think that there’s going to be any healing of partisan divisions anytime soon.
This is an existential struggle for the future of our democracy. There is no “middle ground” or “opportunities for dialogue” to be had. Either we remain a democracy, or Trump and his family will rule the country for the foreseeable future.
I believe MAGA is somewhat less than the 43-7% that may vote for the Republican candidate. By that I suggest that that line is vulnerable to either reason or just exhaustion from always being in battle mode.
No, there’s no reasoning with MAGA
I respect candidates who consider information and sometimes alter their positions. Digging in is bad politics.
So, Chris, tomorrow you’re going to do a good run down of trump’s changing positions too - going back to when he was pro-choice and supported Hillary Clinton?
I hope so.
Don't hold your breath Dawn Kucera
I echo Rocket Master Man. This obsession with K's changes without mentioning T's years and years of positionless shifting seems like an ad feminam attack.
Harris has changed positions. She should address the changes the way Trump addresses his, which he never does. Please do a column that lists every major position Trump has changed, similar to this column on Harris. It is beyond rational to ask one candidate to be scrupulously honest while the other lies several times a day. Thank God she’s not stupid
She's stated her current position which is all that a politician really owes the voters for them to make their decision. She doesn't owe you any further explanation.
Show me a candidate that has never changed any position and you’ll be looking at either a liar or a fool.
No, Chris, Kamala Harris does not have to explain her position changes to YOUR satisfaction. Everyone knows why she changed positions on fracking, Medicare-for-all, the Green New Deal and “mandatory” gun buyback (I’ll get to the supposed “change” about the stupid wall in a second).
It’s called POLITICS. The stances she took five years ago, in a Dem primary with Bernie-ism still smoldering are much different than a general elections in 2024.
Shock of all shocks, in both parties candidates try to appeal to primary voters for that party which tend to be the most ideological.
In general elections they rush to the “center”.
Nothing new. Nothing to be alarmed about. NO mystery.
Back to the “wall”. This is a silly inclusion in examples of “change” or “confusion” as to what she believes.
There is a HUGE difference between the position that she (and almost all Democrats then and now) are against Trump’s 2,000 mile wall that in 2018 Trump REJECTED a deal that would have allocated $25 BILLION.
That is what Kamala was talking about in 2019 and as she said, 100% accurately, “Trump’s border wall is just a stupid use of money. I will block any funding for it.”
$650 million as part of a much more comprehensive bi-partisan deal is not only not in the same solar system as $25B, it’s a smart compromise that she SHOULD “express support” for.
We need leaders that are MORE prone and open to “compromise”…not the “compromise is weak” and disqualifying in today’s radical right wing GOP.
Hilarious. Simply hilarious. VP Harris holds the same policies as former Pres. Trump. Whatever the voters who are within ear shot want to hear. The contortion by democrats on this is Cirque du Soleil worthy!
So, Chris, since you’re totally ignoring the economic policy that the Harris-Walz campaign put out a week before the convention (sorry, did I miss an article?), how about you outline and analyze for us what the Trump-Vance policies are?
That could be *really* useful for all of us, particularly those that are “undecided”, instead of the incessant “XX Things Trump Said. Whoa boy.” articles that (mostly) don’t enlighten us much, other than the comedic value…
Both sides, right?
Yeah like to tax on tips, what a great idea!
Well, it’s pandering on *both* sides for the votes of hospitality workers in the swing state of Nevada, and I don’t think it’s great policy for the national as a whole.
And Trump’s latest turn against Republican “small-government” governance will add another $6T to his deficit over 10 years, after he already increased the national debt by $8.3T in his first term (per the Penn Wharton Budget Model analysis: shame he didn’t learn anything about economics when he audited classes there…). Just like Romney claimed that Obama was trying to bribe voters with “gifts”, Trump is blatantly throwing out ANYTHING he can in half-baked “promises” (and I’m being generous with the “half-baked” comment) in transactional “deals” to fool the not-so-educated among his base and the undecideds into thinking he had actual policies. Remember how he was going to replace the Affordable Care Act with something “much better”, or a major infrastructure deal in “two weeks”? Right!
Oh, but not *you*, @dutchmaga! You see through the blatant pandering and lack of real policies, from 2016 to 2020 to 2024, right?
While it would be nice to know more details about what Harris believes, I see that Liz Cheney is going to be voting for Harris because of the danger to our democracy that Trump poses. Says it all.
As to health records, well, let’s see. Trump “had bone spurs” in the 60’s so he didn’t have to go to Vietnam, and maybe get shot and then be a sucker and a loser. Beyond that, when he was booked into Fulton County jail, he was able to self-declare 6’3” and 215 lbs - about the same as Muhammad Ali in his prime. Oh yes, and he was declared by his doctor to be such a physical specimen that he should live to be 200.
All this to show that there’s no point in even asking for his records - it would all be a bunch of BS.