Chris - agree that from a "good for democracy" perspective, more media availability by KH would be good. But would you care to opine on the _strategy_ of reducing exposure in direct interviews? My take is - media coverage since The Dear Leader came on the scene has been asymmetrical. National media give TDL a pass on all of the lies, boasts, and complete lack of policy priorities (other than Tariffs! and Deportation!). After every interview with KH, they will treat her like a "normal" candidate and pick through past statements looking for inconsistencies, bring in policy wonks to explain why her plans won't work, complain that she's not actually focused on the Important Thing...whatever shiny object they are focused on at the moment. She loses in every one of the "engage with the press" scenarios, it seems to me.
I think that Trump has been routinely and frequently mocked by the national media since he came on the scene. Cillizza, for example, does a regular feature on what Trump is saying line by line. But we've heard it all so many times before that we're totally bored. And it's not as if additional criticism of Trump by the media will change the minds of any of his supporters. The media plays a key role in Trump's campaign strategy: 1) Say or do something outrageous; 2) Liberals run around with their hair on fire and flood the airways with anger and disgust; 3) Trump surrogates patiently explain that he was misunderstood or was joking; 4) Trump dominates the daily news cycle for free; 5) Rinse and repeat.
Agree completely. This would be a game of gotcha. She has a website full of details. If people (including the media) don’t look then that is their problem.
This obsession with Fox News talking points has to stop Chris. It’s not sensible. Staying well away from the media is likely the most Democratic thing Harris can do. It refuses to deal with Trump’s insanity. For example, Stephen Collinson in a CNN web opinion said this, this morning:
“Pritzker was spinning the best case for Harris. But she might not perform as well in a second debate. And in 2016, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton was judged the winner of each of her debates with Trump – but it was he who took the oath of office the following January.”
This has to be the most ridiculous statement I’ve ever seen in the light of Trumps ongoing behavior for the last decade.
You are also guilty of playing into this asymmetric game. Can you see what you are doing?
Let’s remember that she is still VP with a full time job. She may not have been in front of the cameras as VP, but doing her job in a dedicated way. Chris, I don’t disagree with you often, but I think she and her campaign team are prioritizing her time effectively, if I had to choose between her doing a presser or shaking hands up close and personal, I chose the latter.
Totally get your point. I do have one area where I think you may be mistaken. You say the best way to get people to learn about her is the media. Is that true anymore? At one point it was, but with social media and all the other things, I'm not sure it is true anymore.
Two points. First, you're right that the media environment is very different from what it was even a decade or two ago, and her campaign should make use of outlets likely to reach viewers who don't consume traditional media. But second, the most reliable group of voters who turn out in the largest numbers are OLDER votes, and many of them still consume traditional media. She (and Walz) should be doing both.
It would be good for democracy if there were more unbiased news sources, more trustworthy reporting, less spin, and politicians used those channels to communicate serious information about their positions and their plans. But this is not the world we live in. And Trump's/Vance's use of media is in no way the use of unbiased communication channels to communicate serious information, so there is no credible way to claim "he does, so she should". If Harris/Waltz did what Trump/Vance are doing, we'd all be going crazy about how they've lost their minds and need to stop spewing misinformation and spin to heavily biased channels.
I definitely do not have the answers for how media has evolved and will evolve. But no, I do not think that Harris needs to "provide access" like Trump does, and it's not clear that she needs to "provide access" like politicians have done in the past. Maybe a measured approach, where she engages less frequently and more selectively with the press, is the right way to go in 2024.
Chris, All these calls for Harris needing to do more press, etc, serves to present these two candidates as somehow equal, and this as a symmetrical campaign - which they are not!!!
Just listening to, and watching Trump, and knowing his history - pushing the eating cats hokum, the vileness, the ugliness, the nastiness, the cruelty of the man - never mind that he is a convicted felon who is also an adjudicated sexual offender - these all are disqualifiers!
I just cannot see why they are being treated as candidates of equal stature.
I agree with you Chris, but can understand why the Harris campaign might not see a lot of upside (at least not yet).
I do wonder how many real questions Trump has answered versus Harris. For instance, how many tough/probing questions did she answer in her interview with CNN. How many tough/probing questions has Trump answered in all his various interviews and news conferences. It would be interesting to see, since that would be a more apples-to-apples comparison. (And I don't doubt that Trump has answered more, btw)
Vance may be out there, but with every appearance he does irreversible damage to their campaign. I think of him as a stink bomb someone put on a bus for kicks. He never ends up smelling like roses.
Chris , Why don't you shake off your OBSESSION with Harris doing Press Conferences. Please turn your time and resources to your Cult leader's age (he is 78) and his rambling and incoherent speeches like you used to do with Biden when he was still in the race. Now that will be fair and independent journalism. Stop parroting MAGA and Fox news talking points here please. I know it's hour Newsletter but we're here because your promised it is going to be independent and objective. So far it's not. You can fool some people some of the time but you cannot fool all the people all of the time
So talking to the "Media" is the best way to talk to voters? How about just talking to voters directly? Oh, sorry, if she does that she doesn't need you or the other talking heads...
And Trump talking on to Fox News suck-ups is not a press conference...
Yes, rallies are nice, but how should she reach all those people who DON'T attend?
And Chris did make the point that a.) Trump is mostly talking to FOX Noise sycophants and b.) his so-called "press conferences" often don't allow any questions at all.
I think this bus tour is a great idea. She gets to lots of places that must be accessible for a lot of folks. If they choose not to go, it is their loss if they choose not to attend. Rallies tend to be in urban centers which are not easy to get to for rural people working every day.
Trump rallies or what I think of as really photo ops which are supposed to be news interviews tend to be sycophants drooling while he says very strange things in a disconnected fashion if he even has a topic. And recently the main news media has been reporting those things by trying to explain what he may or may not not be talking about. Trump almost never answers questions. He goes off on the tangent of his choice yelling about the other side. No voter comes away better informed.
As to a debate—he will go down in flames. He would have to go through a de-sensitization program in order not to keep rising to the bait, and he has shown he cannot be trained. He has no patience.
Confused. Some media say she's not doing enough interviews and some say she's going to start doing more such as NABJ. See link below saying kind of the opposite of what Chris said. She's concentrating on the swing states by doing more local media. Isn't that a better strategy? Go where she needs to talk about her opportunity plans to convince the what 80,000 unsure voters in these states. Talking to national news might be helpful but that's a bubble where everyone has already decided. What I think is national keeps pushing the narrative to get Harris to talk with them for ratings, scoring amongst their peers, etc. I bet local news is happy to finally get some attention by candidates or their spokesperson. This election seems to be decided at local, local, local. Podcast The Rest is Politics has been really interesting. The episode on being in the spin room by Scaramucci was very enlightening. He said he and others have been doing a lot of drive time radio talks in swing states in support of Harris. Many different media strategies underway, the plan is just not talking all the time to national journalists.
You implied that Trump took questions from impartial media in his “news” conferences and at other times. My question would be who and what were the questions , and did he actually answer them or did he just go on and say what ever he liked. I am in favor of more questions from impartial media for both candidates, as long as they answer the questions that were asked. I think the Harris CNN interview probably had more real answers then all of Trump and Vance interviews put together
I do not see that she needs to do more than a handful of interviews with a press that has been giving Trump a pass for so long. That constitutes an anti-Harris bias. Why would she go there?
But when your opponent is talking about immigrants eating pets, and a concept of a plan, do you really need to get in his way?
Chris - agree that from a "good for democracy" perspective, more media availability by KH would be good. But would you care to opine on the _strategy_ of reducing exposure in direct interviews? My take is - media coverage since The Dear Leader came on the scene has been asymmetrical. National media give TDL a pass on all of the lies, boasts, and complete lack of policy priorities (other than Tariffs! and Deportation!). After every interview with KH, they will treat her like a "normal" candidate and pick through past statements looking for inconsistencies, bring in policy wonks to explain why her plans won't work, complain that she's not actually focused on the Important Thing...whatever shiny object they are focused on at the moment. She loses in every one of the "engage with the press" scenarios, it seems to me.
Well detailed! You are so right!
I think that Trump has been routinely and frequently mocked by the national media since he came on the scene. Cillizza, for example, does a regular feature on what Trump is saying line by line. But we've heard it all so many times before that we're totally bored. And it's not as if additional criticism of Trump by the media will change the minds of any of his supporters. The media plays a key role in Trump's campaign strategy: 1) Say or do something outrageous; 2) Liberals run around with their hair on fire and flood the airways with anger and disgust; 3) Trump surrogates patiently explain that he was misunderstood or was joking; 4) Trump dominates the daily news cycle for free; 5) Rinse and repeat.
Why should she? Everything she says would get twisted. I say talk to the people and leave it at that
Agree completely. This would be a game of gotcha. She has a website full of details. If people (including the media) don’t look then that is their problem.
I don't give two flying fiddles if she speaks more with the press. As long as she wins.
One candidate says the other puts out.
And we're worried about her press schedule?
This obsession with Fox News talking points has to stop Chris. It’s not sensible. Staying well away from the media is likely the most Democratic thing Harris can do. It refuses to deal with Trump’s insanity. For example, Stephen Collinson in a CNN web opinion said this, this morning:
“Pritzker was spinning the best case for Harris. But she might not perform as well in a second debate. And in 2016, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton was judged the winner of each of her debates with Trump – but it was he who took the oath of office the following January.”
This has to be the most ridiculous statement I’ve ever seen in the light of Trumps ongoing behavior for the last decade.
You are also guilty of playing into this asymmetric game. Can you see what you are doing?
Collinson is right. And one of the big reasons Hillary lost was a failure to tend to the "blue wall" states, not any debate performance.
Let’s remember that she is still VP with a full time job. She may not have been in front of the cameras as VP, but doing her job in a dedicated way. Chris, I don’t disagree with you often, but I think she and her campaign team are prioritizing her time effectively, if I had to choose between her doing a presser or shaking hands up close and personal, I chose the latter.
Agreed!
Totally get your point. I do have one area where I think you may be mistaken. You say the best way to get people to learn about her is the media. Is that true anymore? At one point it was, but with social media and all the other things, I'm not sure it is true anymore.
Two points. First, you're right that the media environment is very different from what it was even a decade or two ago, and her campaign should make use of outlets likely to reach viewers who don't consume traditional media. But second, the most reliable group of voters who turn out in the largest numbers are OLDER votes, and many of them still consume traditional media. She (and Walz) should be doing both.
It would be good for democracy if there were more unbiased news sources, more trustworthy reporting, less spin, and politicians used those channels to communicate serious information about their positions and their plans. But this is not the world we live in. And Trump's/Vance's use of media is in no way the use of unbiased communication channels to communicate serious information, so there is no credible way to claim "he does, so she should". If Harris/Waltz did what Trump/Vance are doing, we'd all be going crazy about how they've lost their minds and need to stop spewing misinformation and spin to heavily biased channels.
I definitely do not have the answers for how media has evolved and will evolve. But no, I do not think that Harris needs to "provide access" like Trump does, and it's not clear that she needs to "provide access" like politicians have done in the past. Maybe a measured approach, where she engages less frequently and more selectively with the press, is the right way to go in 2024.
Chris, All these calls for Harris needing to do more press, etc, serves to present these two candidates as somehow equal, and this as a symmetrical campaign - which they are not!!!
Just listening to, and watching Trump, and knowing his history - pushing the eating cats hokum, the vileness, the ugliness, the nastiness, the cruelty of the man - never mind that he is a convicted felon who is also an adjudicated sexual offender - these all are disqualifiers!
I just cannot see why they are being treated as candidates of equal stature.
I agree with you Chris, but can understand why the Harris campaign might not see a lot of upside (at least not yet).
I do wonder how many real questions Trump has answered versus Harris. For instance, how many tough/probing questions did she answer in her interview with CNN. How many tough/probing questions has Trump answered in all his various interviews and news conferences. It would be interesting to see, since that would be a more apples-to-apples comparison. (And I don't doubt that Trump has answered more, btw)
Vance may be out there, but with every appearance he does irreversible damage to their campaign. I think of him as a stink bomb someone put on a bus for kicks. He never ends up smelling like roses.
🤣
Chris , Why don't you shake off your OBSESSION with Harris doing Press Conferences. Please turn your time and resources to your Cult leader's age (he is 78) and his rambling and incoherent speeches like you used to do with Biden when he was still in the race. Now that will be fair and independent journalism. Stop parroting MAGA and Fox news talking points here please. I know it's hour Newsletter but we're here because your promised it is going to be independent and objective. So far it's not. You can fool some people some of the time but you cannot fool all the people all of the time
I sincerely hope you are better at diagnosing patients than you are journalists, Dr. Ibrahim.
So talking to the "Media" is the best way to talk to voters? How about just talking to voters directly? Oh, sorry, if she does that she doesn't need you or the other talking heads...
And Trump talking on to Fox News suck-ups is not a press conference...
Yes, rallies are nice, but how should she reach all those people who DON'T attend?
And Chris did make the point that a.) Trump is mostly talking to FOX Noise sycophants and b.) his so-called "press conferences" often don't allow any questions at all.
I think this bus tour is a great idea. She gets to lots of places that must be accessible for a lot of folks. If they choose not to go, it is their loss if they choose not to attend. Rallies tend to be in urban centers which are not easy to get to for rural people working every day.
Trump rallies or what I think of as really photo ops which are supposed to be news interviews tend to be sycophants drooling while he says very strange things in a disconnected fashion if he even has a topic. And recently the main news media has been reporting those things by trying to explain what he may or may not not be talking about. Trump almost never answers questions. He goes off on the tangent of his choice yelling about the other side. No voter comes away better informed.
As to a debate—he will go down in flames. He would have to go through a de-sensitization program in order not to keep rising to the bait, and he has shown he cannot be trained. He has no patience.
Confused. Some media say she's not doing enough interviews and some say she's going to start doing more such as NABJ. See link below saying kind of the opposite of what Chris said. She's concentrating on the swing states by doing more local media. Isn't that a better strategy? Go where she needs to talk about her opportunity plans to convince the what 80,000 unsure voters in these states. Talking to national news might be helpful but that's a bubble where everyone has already decided. What I think is national keeps pushing the narrative to get Harris to talk with them for ratings, scoring amongst their peers, etc. I bet local news is happy to finally get some attention by candidates or their spokesperson. This election seems to be decided at local, local, local. Podcast The Rest is Politics has been really interesting. The episode on being in the spin room by Scaramucci was very enlightening. He said he and others have been doing a lot of drive time radio talks in swing states in support of Harris. Many different media strategies underway, the plan is just not talking all the time to national journalists.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4875419-kamala-harris-media-nabj-interview/
You implied that Trump took questions from impartial media in his “news” conferences and at other times. My question would be who and what were the questions , and did he actually answer them or did he just go on and say what ever he liked. I am in favor of more questions from impartial media for both candidates, as long as they answer the questions that were asked. I think the Harris CNN interview probably had more real answers then all of Trump and Vance interviews put together
I do not see that she needs to do more than a handful of interviews with a press that has been giving Trump a pass for so long. That constitutes an anti-Harris bias. Why would she go there?