I know what you are saying about Harris’s claim about not seeing any cognitive impairment in Joe Biden and agree. However, it’s a fine line for her, IMO. Biden is still her boss, still,the sitting president and she’s not going to demean him in any way.
I also think that if you are spending lots of time with someone who is in a slow decline, you honestly don’t see if the way others might. Sadly, I went through this with my own father- the decline in two months was very noticeable if I had not traveled to see him… but I didn’t notice that same changes if I saw him every day
The way to handle this is to say: "Sure, Joe's age was increasing with time as everyone's age does, by definition! It's not a crime to get old or be old. Some signs of aging in people are obvious and not a major concern. As to his fitness for duty as POTUS including sound decision-making, I did not see anything that alarmed me whenever we were together." Acknowledge a person is aging but be clear you did not see signs of cognitive decline (assuming you really did not) as best you could as a lay person.
But I would also add here, why does it matter? The VP is there to assume the role of President, should he not be able to perform. Would admitting she personally saw decline or not really matter? He stepped down and she stepped up when it came to re-election. I would even say that though he is the current sitting president, he has sort of faded into the background and all focus has been on her for the most part. I do not get why folks are so fixated on whether or not she saw decline.
I mean sure but how are voters supposed to deal with the fact that she is directly lying to our faces about something we saw with our own eyes. Is this not the definition of gaslighting?
Wow. A rather cogent interview. Sentences were complete. No derogatory comments about women, anatomy, golf, etc. Seemed like an appropriate presidential campaign response. Refreshing.
Never ever to seem disloyal for one second, for political reasons -- Trump is waiting to pounce on even the slightest sign of this, which he will use to death to cast her as having turned on Joe Biden, first being chosen by him to be VP, but now becoming a deceptive back stabber, etc. That is not the case and is not how she has come across, but he's absolutely desperate for her to make that error. Everyone values her loyalty to Biden in her role as vice president, since we expect that of vice presidents.
Continuing to tell the truth (as I believe it), which is that Biden is unquestionably physically and mentally fit right now to serve out his first term as president -- certainly far more so than Trump ever was, though that's a side comment -- and that he chose not to run for a second term.
Buying into a question that assumes, by implication, that Biden already has high enough levels of mental and physical decline that he should not be president today would be factually wrong, a huge error politically, and even an error that would harm our national security.
Are you calling George Clooney a liar? I don’t see how any good faith observer can honestly state that Biden is “unquestionably fit”. It is obviously not the case. The Biden we saw in the debate was clearly not up to the job of being president.
Of course not. Did George Clooney say that Biden should step down from the presidency? I just re-read the entire essay because of your comment and (surprise!) of course he didn't. You're trying to stuff words into my mouth that I didn't say. Gross, and no thank you.
Clooney said (and I totally agree) that Biden could not successfully campaign for re-election, so he should give up the nomination. I don't see one word about Biden being unfit to serve as president to the end of his first term or needing to step down, making Harris president. Maybe you should re-read his essay: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/10/opinion/joe-biden-democratic-nominee.html
The answer Harris (and other Biden aides) should've given from the get-go about his debate performance: "It was a deficit of communication, NOT ability, as so often happens with older Americans."
And I believe that, too. For all his faults and missteps (and he has a bunch), he's been a fairly good leader bringing us out of Covid and reducing inflation that he NEVER caused. Inflation happened worldwide due to the pandemic, supply shortfalls, and -- something I never hear -- printing 6 trillion dollars to deal with the shutdowns. The US has handled inflation these past 3 years under Biden better than ANY other nation. That's a fact. Yet Biden gets all the blame and zero credit.
Thanks for this summary, Chris. In my opinion, it was one of the most important value added things I get from your subscription! I think that VP Harris gave strong answers across the board. When running a campaign against a racist, misogynistic, xenophobic liar, I believe her answer rang true and strong. By the way, I share your skepticism about the amount of desire in the country to heal the divides, but I think it is important for leaders to espouse goals that appeal to the "better angels of our nature".
I’m not sure why you or anyone else put emphasis on the fact that Harris‘s vice presidency made her an instrumental player in the development of policy in the Biden administration. Yes she provided support and advice, but ultimately she was not the decision-maker. I understand that in terms of political rhetoric, It’s a convenient thing to position her vice presidency as part and parcel of Biden‘s policies but from an operational standpoint, it’s pretty much a false claim. I don’t subscribe to hear you simply repeat convenient political rhetoric as if it’s totally factual.
Last but not least, I think she should be much clearer that she supports things like the inflation reduction act, and the chips legislation, picking out specific accomplishments that many American support
I agree with you, abortion, abortion, abortion 24/7. People can't relate to saving Democracy. Why? They have never been in a nation that lost it. Guess what, I've been lived in places without it and it is bad (Nigeria, Kenya etc) and traveled in many more. Americans are spoiled brats.
I don't agree with Chris and you. Abortion shouldn't be ignored - it's a winning issue for the Dems - but it's not particularly important to most voters. Everyone has an opinion about the subject but those voters who put abortion front and center have already chosen their candidate. The small group of undecided voters still in play appear to be lifelong Republicans who just can't stand Trump. True, most of those are conservative women but I agree with the Harris campaign that "saving Democracy" is the most likely way to reach them.
Absolutely but it’s not the only illustration which essentially is the premise of Chris’s advice. And, this is more to Bob’s comment, I noted Snyder and the NYT as illustrating how to make a concrete rather than an abstract argument, not that Harrison should merely or even reference them. Abortion or more broadly women’s freedom in their own bodies is not abstract whereas just “freedom” is. Kelly and his experience and conclusions are very real illustrations of the threat to democracy in a way that just saying Trump is a threat is weaker. Hopes and even fears have to be anchored in a way that connects to the lived experience.
Unfortunately, "saving democracy" is too abstract. Harris and Democrats generally need/needed to tie an unhinged Trump to specific deleterious effects on democracy. The recent interview with Kelly, the recitations by Snyder, and even the NYT material about what a Trump election would mean are illustrative of concrete prospects that are less abstract and more meaningful. Even a concise but clear explanation of why a tariff is a tax on American citizens would be meaningful.
I doubt that the vast majority of voters know who Timothy Snyder is, much less pay attention to what he has to say. And the vast majority of voters don't read the NY Times. But Kelly's recent remarks might illustrate the concerns that experienced, conservative voices have with a second Trump Presidency. They serve to emphasize the "saving democracy" narrative.
Perhaps. But I'd like to think the freedom-loving DNA of our country would be more resilient than that. Then again, with so much misinformation and an ill-informed electorate, you could be right.
I've said this before No one is telling the full story on immigration It has been 40 or 50 years since we have had any meaningful change in immigration laws At least three times Republicans in the house have blocked bipartisan bills in Republican house after a bipartisan senate passed it or agreed on it There was absolutely no compromise in the house bill
Yes the Biden administration dropped the ball but the pattern had already been set
Trumps things about immigration are race baiting, dog whistling and simple scare tactics
Finally this nonsense about immigrants taking jobs from Americans is nonsense Economists have said it will hurt industry if everyone is deported
Chris, I think you keep consistently missing a few things.
1. Kamala doesn't have to mention abortion morning, noon, and night -- the allied Super PACs and outside groups are running nothing but ads on this, and so is virtually every Democratic Congressional candidate. The message is out there and pervasive. If abortion is your #1 issue, she has reached you, and you've got it. Now you are just a GOTV target. Her closing argument needs to get the remaining undecided voters and disaffected Republicans in particular. Every usual GOP vote that she can get to stay home, or switch to her side is a vote that Trump doesn't get.
2. There is no answer on transgender care that is positive for her, so saying nothing specific -- other than to follow federal law -- is a negative. If she comes out strongly pro-trans, it lends credence to the constant barrage of GOP ads, and becomes a talking point for Republicans. If she actively runs away from trans people, she can hurt herself with LGTBQ voters. This answer is both correct (because it is not really a major national federal issue), and good politics.
3. Your skepticism on the "turn the page" argument is baffling. It is like you have a blind spot that you refuse to look past. She is not arguing to turn the page from the perspective of the current economy, current state of affairs, or anything else. She is arguing to turn the page from Trump. I don't know if you noticed, but Biden won the election, and Trump did not exactly go away. She is arguing to turn the page on Trump. Her case is that if he loses this election, we can all move past him. The GOP can move past him. He will become less relevant to the media, and the country. Republicans don't generally like a loser, and a 2 (or 3 time) loser in Trump is not a cause for the party to continue to rally around him -- especially if he winds up with a few more convictions.
4. You aren't wrong that Trump killing the border bill is a tough sell -- but it also happens to be true. Trump will have zero ability to address the border through legislation if he wins, because Democrats in the Senate will filibuster it -- which is also true. But, the sell to voters has to be that at least she has a plan. Trump just yells "mass deportation" with no plan, and somehow that becomes acceptable. This is where the media needs to do a better job. They should be pointing out that Harris has a plan, and Trump has a slogan and no plan.
5. The questions about Biden's competence are fair, but I think a better answer for her is to say, something to the effect of 'Joe Biden may have talked or waked a bit slower, but his decision-making and grasp of the issues remained competent and solid. But, I think the better question is for Members of the Trump administration who reportedly had serious discussions of having the cabinet invoke the 25th Amendment and removing him due to his erratic behavior. I think the media would do well to dig into that a little more than whether Joe Biden talks a little slower now.'
The idea that Joe Biden is talking and walking a little slower is not a sign of incompetence -- despite what the media keeps trying to portray. He has not been erratic or showed signs of poor decision-making. The same cannot be remotely said of Trump.
Chris has a point that Harris highlighting the abortion issue “morning, noon and night between now and the election.” is a no-brainer but he misses the mark when he says that “She and her team seem to have settled on a “Trump is unhinged and a danger to democracy” message as their closing argument.” It's more nuanced than that.
Hat tip to (conservative, ex-GOPer) Bill Kristol at anti-Trump Bulwark (https://www.thebulwark.com/p/reich-track-wrong-track) as he cited “The Democratic polling and messaging firm Blueprint recently tested the effectiveness of several closing messages for the Harris campaign.”
What was the message that “moved the needle” MORE than any other, including abortion?
“Nearly half of Donald Trump’s Cabinet have refused to endorse him. When Trump learned during the Capitol riot that his supporters were threatening to kill his own vice president, he said ‘so what?’ and refused to do anything to assure the vice president was safe. Republican governors, senators, and House members have all said the same thing: We can’t give Trump another four years as president.”
THAT is the closing argument as evidenced by the high profile appearances with Liz Chaney and now bolstered by the gob smacking ON THE RECORD quotes from Gen John Kelly, who worked THE closest to Trump of anyone, and brings a powerful and credible nuance to “Trump is unhinged and a danger to democracy”.
The combination of the very strong abortion message, that reverberates in every corner of the country including red states, PLUS the FACT that an extraordinary number of (once) loyal Republicans are sounding a LOUD clarion call that Trump is a existential danger to America gives GOP leaning voters the excuse, reason and room to vote for Harris.
It does not require a huge percentage to do so in a race that may come down to around 1% in seven states.
It’s this combination of closing arguments that could be powerfully effective and decisive.
When Trump’s sycophants start admitting that he is in cognitive decline then I’ll worry about what Harris says about Biden. Mike Johnson?. Mitch? Matt?
Chris, I agree with you that the comments about being a president for all Americans and there's more that unites us than divides us, etc., is more aspirational than true. But I think it's both necessary and proper for a president (or candidate) to say these aspirational things, as a matter of basic - but important! - moral leadership. To say the opposite would be self fulfilling.
Also, she *can't* concede that Pres. Biden has noticeably declined, because (i) that would invite the next obvious question of why haven't she and the Cabinet asked him to resign or invoke the 25th Am., and (ii) it could have negative consequences for national security.
She *might* be able to make a more truthful but careful answer along the lines of, "The President is, of course, older now than when he took office, but he remains in good health for his age, and fully capable of fulfilling his duties." But I think that would still invite the difficult followup questions.
Whoa boy that’s some wacky stuff there! So the follow up to the JB diminished mental and physical health question is a simple one. So you didn’t notice anything, are you that non observant or are you just that stupid? Because everyone in America saw it all very clearly in about 10 minutes.
Oh sure. I guess canceling out of multiple media hits/interviews due to exhaustion didn't make it across your desk.
The man has the vocabulary of a 10yo while "weaving" non-sensically from one topic to the next all the while evading the actual question. If you can't see it - you should be asking yourself that same follow-up question:
So you didn't notice anything, are you that non observant or ar you just that stupid?
I agree with Paul about Trump’s deficits. But this is also why I refuse to be gaslit about Biden’s fitness. The two men stood on stage next to each other for 90 minutes and it was so obvious that Biden’s decline was worse than Trump’s that Biden had to drop out of the race, and the Trump campaign was mad about it!
Biden was sick that night and had a head full of snot. That would slow anyone down. Physically he is in worse shape than four years ago. I think that his mind is still sharp but his stutter and other communication difficulties are no longer up to snuff for the office of the President. As for Trump in that debate, he spouted lies the entire time. A verbal spew or projectile vomiting of lies, sounded like the rantings of a madman.
Ok, ok, ok. Enough about the debate. It was four months ago and he sucked. But what about all the good things he's done in the totality of his presidency.
And Trump has declined significantly since that debate. Just watch his stupid rallies.
It’s not his schedule, it’s the crazy, indecipherable word salad he speaks everywhere! He can’t formulate a coherent paragraph. He’s the walking example of cognitively impaired.
Generally, I tend to find your commentaries on these lines interesting and at times instructive. There are at least two, however, that are at best perplexing and at worst irritating. First, on the immigration line. You keep saying, and I say "keep" because it's been a constant since I've been a subscriber, that (some variant here) "yes, Trump torpedoed the immigration legislation but Biden/Harris have been in office for four years." And I have to wonder what other steps, legal steps, you believe they could have taken. I suppose they could have revived the child separation policy that Trump put in place, or similar things like moving funds around to "build the wall", but seriously, without some kind of legislation, what substantive thing were you expecting? And that goes to the second issue, and another one you keep harping on, which is her assertion that hers would not be a continuation of Biden, which you seem to think is the best thing since sliced bread, but then you carp that she's not throwing Biden under the boss, i.e., that she is not making a public break with Biden on some unnamed issues. Again, where do you think she should make such a break, and do you really think it practical? The VP job is an empty suit unless the President empowers it. You're really asking her to say "If I were President instead of Biden, I would have done ...". Come on Chris, what kind of response would that provoke? The best she can say and be credible is that she was engaged in policy discussions, she gave her best advice, Biden is the President and made his decisions. She cannot and should not say that she said do X, and Biden did Y. It would not be credible, and it's also not her job, even if she is running for the job now. Go ahead, do your own thought experiment. Chris: "If I were Harris and I were asked those two questions, I would say ..." I'm not holding my breath awaiting your impersonation of a Vice-President throwing the President under the bus.
I noticed that Kamala never once mentioned....
1) Her admiration for Hitler
2) That her political rival was a sh*t president
3) That she can grab a guy by the balls anytime she wants because she's a star and they let you do it
She kind of seems....normal!
How refreshing!
I know what you are saying about Harris’s claim about not seeing any cognitive impairment in Joe Biden and agree. However, it’s a fine line for her, IMO. Biden is still her boss, still,the sitting president and she’s not going to demean him in any way.
Kamala knows how to appropriately show respect. Something tRump never learned or cared to learn.
I also think that if you are spending lots of time with someone who is in a slow decline, you honestly don’t see if the way others might. Sadly, I went through this with my own father- the decline in two months was very noticeable if I had not traveled to see him… but I didn’t notice that same changes if I saw him every day
How about all the people who watch Trump and don’t call out the cognitive impairment?
The way to handle this is to say: "Sure, Joe's age was increasing with time as everyone's age does, by definition! It's not a crime to get old or be old. Some signs of aging in people are obvious and not a major concern. As to his fitness for duty as POTUS including sound decision-making, I did not see anything that alarmed me whenever we were together." Acknowledge a person is aging but be clear you did not see signs of cognitive decline (assuming you really did not) as best you could as a lay person.
But I would also add here, why does it matter? The VP is there to assume the role of President, should he not be able to perform. Would admitting she personally saw decline or not really matter? He stepped down and she stepped up when it came to re-election. I would even say that though he is the current sitting president, he has sort of faded into the background and all focus has been on her for the most part. I do not get why folks are so fixated on whether or not she saw decline.
I mean sure but how are voters supposed to deal with the fact that she is directly lying to our faces about something we saw with our own eyes. Is this not the definition of gaslighting?
She can’t hold a candle to trump’s gaslighting.
Wow. A rather cogent interview. Sentences were complete. No derogatory comments about women, anatomy, golf, etc. Seemed like an appropriate presidential campaign response. Refreshing.
Harris has two imperatives about Biden.
Never ever to seem disloyal for one second, for political reasons -- Trump is waiting to pounce on even the slightest sign of this, which he will use to death to cast her as having turned on Joe Biden, first being chosen by him to be VP, but now becoming a deceptive back stabber, etc. That is not the case and is not how she has come across, but he's absolutely desperate for her to make that error. Everyone values her loyalty to Biden in her role as vice president, since we expect that of vice presidents.
Continuing to tell the truth (as I believe it), which is that Biden is unquestionably physically and mentally fit right now to serve out his first term as president -- certainly far more so than Trump ever was, though that's a side comment -- and that he chose not to run for a second term.
Buying into a question that assumes, by implication, that Biden already has high enough levels of mental and physical decline that he should not be president today would be factually wrong, a huge error politically, and even an error that would harm our national security.
Are you calling George Clooney a liar? I don’t see how any good faith observer can honestly state that Biden is “unquestionably fit”. It is obviously not the case. The Biden we saw in the debate was clearly not up to the job of being president.
Of course not. Did George Clooney say that Biden should step down from the presidency? I just re-read the entire essay because of your comment and (surprise!) of course he didn't. You're trying to stuff words into my mouth that I didn't say. Gross, and no thank you.
Clooney said (and I totally agree) that Biden could not successfully campaign for re-election, so he should give up the nomination. I don't see one word about Biden being unfit to serve as president to the end of his first term or needing to step down, making Harris president. Maybe you should re-read his essay: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/10/opinion/joe-biden-democratic-nominee.html
George Clooney’s description of interacting with Joe Biden was not compatible with a belief that Biden has the capacity to be president.
Also your claim was “unquestionably fit”. Seriously, did you watch the debate and do you honestly believe that statement?
Neither is Trump. Listening to his speeches and responses to questions: the dude has serious cognitive decline. SERIOUS!!!
Well said!
The answer Harris (and other Biden aides) should've given from the get-go about his debate performance: "It was a deficit of communication, NOT ability, as so often happens with older Americans."
And I believe that, too. For all his faults and missteps (and he has a bunch), he's been a fairly good leader bringing us out of Covid and reducing inflation that he NEVER caused. Inflation happened worldwide due to the pandemic, supply shortfalls, and -- something I never hear -- printing 6 trillion dollars to deal with the shutdowns. The US has handled inflation these past 3 years under Biden better than ANY other nation. That's a fact. Yet Biden gets all the blame and zero credit.
Well said sir
Thanks for this summary, Chris. In my opinion, it was one of the most important value added things I get from your subscription! I think that VP Harris gave strong answers across the board. When running a campaign against a racist, misogynistic, xenophobic liar, I believe her answer rang true and strong. By the way, I share your skepticism about the amount of desire in the country to heal the divides, but I think it is important for leaders to espouse goals that appeal to the "better angels of our nature".
She's definitely getting better at interviews. Wish she'd done more sooner.
It is never too late!
I’m not sure why you or anyone else put emphasis on the fact that Harris‘s vice presidency made her an instrumental player in the development of policy in the Biden administration. Yes she provided support and advice, but ultimately she was not the decision-maker. I understand that in terms of political rhetoric, It’s a convenient thing to position her vice presidency as part and parcel of Biden‘s policies but from an operational standpoint, it’s pretty much a false claim. I don’t subscribe to hear you simply repeat convenient political rhetoric as if it’s totally factual.
Last but not least, I think she should be much clearer that she supports things like the inflation reduction act, and the chips legislation, picking out specific accomplishments that many American support
Extraordinarily good point in that last paragraph/sentence. Indeed, she should be leaning into the accomplishments and their effects.
May be Chris and the MAGA members expect Harris to issue executive order to close the border.
I agree with you, abortion, abortion, abortion 24/7. People can't relate to saving Democracy. Why? They have never been in a nation that lost it. Guess what, I've been lived in places without it and it is bad (Nigeria, Kenya etc) and traveled in many more. Americans are spoiled brats.
I don't agree with Chris and you. Abortion shouldn't be ignored - it's a winning issue for the Dems - but it's not particularly important to most voters. Everyone has an opinion about the subject but those voters who put abortion front and center have already chosen their candidate. The small group of undecided voters still in play appear to be lifelong Republicans who just can't stand Trump. True, most of those are conservative women but I agree with the Harris campaign that "saving Democracy" is the most likely way to reach them.
Is the abortion issue not a concrete example of how democracy is being challenged?
Absolutely but it’s not the only illustration which essentially is the premise of Chris’s advice. And, this is more to Bob’s comment, I noted Snyder and the NYT as illustrating how to make a concrete rather than an abstract argument, not that Harrison should merely or even reference them. Abortion or more broadly women’s freedom in their own bodies is not abstract whereas just “freedom” is. Kelly and his experience and conclusions are very real illustrations of the threat to democracy in a way that just saying Trump is a threat is weaker. Hopes and even fears have to be anchored in a way that connects to the lived experience.
Unfortunately, "saving democracy" is too abstract. Harris and Democrats generally need/needed to tie an unhinged Trump to specific deleterious effects on democracy. The recent interview with Kelly, the recitations by Snyder, and even the NYT material about what a Trump election would mean are illustrative of concrete prospects that are less abstract and more meaningful. Even a concise but clear explanation of why a tariff is a tax on American citizens would be meaningful.
I doubt that the vast majority of voters know who Timothy Snyder is, much less pay attention to what he has to say. And the vast majority of voters don't read the NY Times. But Kelly's recent remarks might illustrate the concerns that experienced, conservative voices have with a second Trump Presidency. They serve to emphasize the "saving democracy" narrative.
We're all about to experience it firsthand. Maybe some Americans will then wake up. Time will tell.
If Trump is elected, do not expect the country to walk back from authoritarianism in your lifetime. His election would be a one way ticket.
Perhaps. But I'd like to think the freedom-loving DNA of our country would be more resilient than that. Then again, with so much misinformation and an ill-informed electorate, you could be right.
I've said this before No one is telling the full story on immigration It has been 40 or 50 years since we have had any meaningful change in immigration laws At least three times Republicans in the house have blocked bipartisan bills in Republican house after a bipartisan senate passed it or agreed on it There was absolutely no compromise in the house bill
Yes the Biden administration dropped the ball but the pattern had already been set
Trumps things about immigration are race baiting, dog whistling and simple scare tactics
Finally this nonsense about immigrants taking jobs from Americans is nonsense Economists have said it will hurt industry if everyone is deported
Signs of aging and slowing down do not equate to incompetence
Completely agree.
Chris, I think you keep consistently missing a few things.
1. Kamala doesn't have to mention abortion morning, noon, and night -- the allied Super PACs and outside groups are running nothing but ads on this, and so is virtually every Democratic Congressional candidate. The message is out there and pervasive. If abortion is your #1 issue, she has reached you, and you've got it. Now you are just a GOTV target. Her closing argument needs to get the remaining undecided voters and disaffected Republicans in particular. Every usual GOP vote that she can get to stay home, or switch to her side is a vote that Trump doesn't get.
2. There is no answer on transgender care that is positive for her, so saying nothing specific -- other than to follow federal law -- is a negative. If she comes out strongly pro-trans, it lends credence to the constant barrage of GOP ads, and becomes a talking point for Republicans. If she actively runs away from trans people, she can hurt herself with LGTBQ voters. This answer is both correct (because it is not really a major national federal issue), and good politics.
3. Your skepticism on the "turn the page" argument is baffling. It is like you have a blind spot that you refuse to look past. She is not arguing to turn the page from the perspective of the current economy, current state of affairs, or anything else. She is arguing to turn the page from Trump. I don't know if you noticed, but Biden won the election, and Trump did not exactly go away. She is arguing to turn the page on Trump. Her case is that if he loses this election, we can all move past him. The GOP can move past him. He will become less relevant to the media, and the country. Republicans don't generally like a loser, and a 2 (or 3 time) loser in Trump is not a cause for the party to continue to rally around him -- especially if he winds up with a few more convictions.
4. You aren't wrong that Trump killing the border bill is a tough sell -- but it also happens to be true. Trump will have zero ability to address the border through legislation if he wins, because Democrats in the Senate will filibuster it -- which is also true. But, the sell to voters has to be that at least she has a plan. Trump just yells "mass deportation" with no plan, and somehow that becomes acceptable. This is where the media needs to do a better job. They should be pointing out that Harris has a plan, and Trump has a slogan and no plan.
5. The questions about Biden's competence are fair, but I think a better answer for her is to say, something to the effect of 'Joe Biden may have talked or waked a bit slower, but his decision-making and grasp of the issues remained competent and solid. But, I think the better question is for Members of the Trump administration who reportedly had serious discussions of having the cabinet invoke the 25th Amendment and removing him due to his erratic behavior. I think the media would do well to dig into that a little more than whether Joe Biden talks a little slower now.'
The idea that Joe Biden is talking and walking a little slower is not a sign of incompetence -- despite what the media keeps trying to portray. He has not been erratic or showed signs of poor decision-making. The same cannot be remotely said of Trump.
This feels like a good place to stop.
Good points all, Ryan!
Chris has a point that Harris highlighting the abortion issue “morning, noon and night between now and the election.” is a no-brainer but he misses the mark when he says that “She and her team seem to have settled on a “Trump is unhinged and a danger to democracy” message as their closing argument.” It's more nuanced than that.
Hat tip to (conservative, ex-GOPer) Bill Kristol at anti-Trump Bulwark (https://www.thebulwark.com/p/reich-track-wrong-track) as he cited “The Democratic polling and messaging firm Blueprint recently tested the effectiveness of several closing messages for the Harris campaign.”
https://blueprint2024.com/polling/trump-closing-argument-10-16/
What was the message that “moved the needle” MORE than any other, including abortion?
“Nearly half of Donald Trump’s Cabinet have refused to endorse him. When Trump learned during the Capitol riot that his supporters were threatening to kill his own vice president, he said ‘so what?’ and refused to do anything to assure the vice president was safe. Republican governors, senators, and House members have all said the same thing: We can’t give Trump another four years as president.”
THAT is the closing argument as evidenced by the high profile appearances with Liz Chaney and now bolstered by the gob smacking ON THE RECORD quotes from Gen John Kelly, who worked THE closest to Trump of anyone, and brings a powerful and credible nuance to “Trump is unhinged and a danger to democracy”.
The combination of the very strong abortion message, that reverberates in every corner of the country including red states, PLUS the FACT that an extraordinary number of (once) loyal Republicans are sounding a LOUD clarion call that Trump is a existential danger to America gives GOP leaning voters the excuse, reason and room to vote for Harris.
It does not require a huge percentage to do so in a race that may come down to around 1% in seven states.
It’s this combination of closing arguments that could be powerfully effective and decisive.
When Trump’s sycophants start admitting that he is in cognitive decline then I’ll worry about what Harris says about Biden. Mike Johnson?. Mitch? Matt?
Chris, I agree with you that the comments about being a president for all Americans and there's more that unites us than divides us, etc., is more aspirational than true. But I think it's both necessary and proper for a president (or candidate) to say these aspirational things, as a matter of basic - but important! - moral leadership. To say the opposite would be self fulfilling.
Also, she *can't* concede that Pres. Biden has noticeably declined, because (i) that would invite the next obvious question of why haven't she and the Cabinet asked him to resign or invoke the 25th Am., and (ii) it could have negative consequences for national security.
She *might* be able to make a more truthful but careful answer along the lines of, "The President is, of course, older now than when he took office, but he remains in good health for his age, and fully capable of fulfilling his duties." But I think that would still invite the difficult followup questions.
Whoa boy that’s some wacky stuff there! So the follow up to the JB diminished mental and physical health question is a simple one. So you didn’t notice anything, are you that non observant or are you just that stupid? Because everyone in America saw it all very clearly in about 10 minutes.
Biden's decline is/was every bit as noticable as Trump's decline and descent into lunacy.
It's comical, the lies we allow ourselves to overlook and then get angry about depending on circumstance.
Really?
Not sure how old you are, but try to keep up with President Trump’s schedule this past month and next 2 weeks. Doubt most of us could do it
Oh sure. I guess canceling out of multiple media hits/interviews due to exhaustion didn't make it across your desk.
The man has the vocabulary of a 10yo while "weaving" non-sensically from one topic to the next all the while evading the actual question. If you can't see it - you should be asking yourself that same follow-up question:
So you didn't notice anything, are you that non observant or ar you just that stupid?
Best of luck to you!
Well said sir!
I agree with Paul about Trump’s deficits. But this is also why I refuse to be gaslit about Biden’s fitness. The two men stood on stage next to each other for 90 minutes and it was so obvious that Biden’s decline was worse than Trump’s that Biden had to drop out of the race, and the Trump campaign was mad about it!
Biden was sick that night and had a head full of snot. That would slow anyone down. Physically he is in worse shape than four years ago. I think that his mind is still sharp but his stutter and other communication difficulties are no longer up to snuff for the office of the President. As for Trump in that debate, he spouted lies the entire time. A verbal spew or projectile vomiting of lies, sounded like the rantings of a madman.
Ok, ok, ok. Enough about the debate. It was four months ago and he sucked. But what about all the good things he's done in the totality of his presidency.
And Trump has declined significantly since that debate. Just watch his stupid rallies.
It’s not his schedule, it’s the crazy, indecipherable word salad he speaks everywhere! He can’t formulate a coherent paragraph. He’s the walking example of cognitively impaired.
Generally, I tend to find your commentaries on these lines interesting and at times instructive. There are at least two, however, that are at best perplexing and at worst irritating. First, on the immigration line. You keep saying, and I say "keep" because it's been a constant since I've been a subscriber, that (some variant here) "yes, Trump torpedoed the immigration legislation but Biden/Harris have been in office for four years." And I have to wonder what other steps, legal steps, you believe they could have taken. I suppose they could have revived the child separation policy that Trump put in place, or similar things like moving funds around to "build the wall", but seriously, without some kind of legislation, what substantive thing were you expecting? And that goes to the second issue, and another one you keep harping on, which is her assertion that hers would not be a continuation of Biden, which you seem to think is the best thing since sliced bread, but then you carp that she's not throwing Biden under the boss, i.e., that she is not making a public break with Biden on some unnamed issues. Again, where do you think she should make such a break, and do you really think it practical? The VP job is an empty suit unless the President empowers it. You're really asking her to say "If I were President instead of Biden, I would have done ...". Come on Chris, what kind of response would that provoke? The best she can say and be credible is that she was engaged in policy discussions, she gave her best advice, Biden is the President and made his decisions. She cannot and should not say that she said do X, and Biden did Y. It would not be credible, and it's also not her job, even if she is running for the job now. Go ahead, do your own thought experiment. Chris: "If I were Harris and I were asked those two questions, I would say ..." I'm not holding my breath awaiting your impersonation of a Vice-President throwing the President under the bus.
Excellent.