Kamala Harris: Madam Vice President

[Antimony]

9 hours ago, AnywhereButHere said:

She was focused, targeted, and totally on point. I was holding my breath for the first five minutes, but damn! She roasted him alive. 

This was a strange debate for me because she has the exact same public speaking style as a former boss of mine, who I've watched prep for speaking and give speeches so many times. 

Those first five minutes I thought, "She has some nervous energy" and then the second question she hit that stride that I've seen my boss hit and I thought, "Oh, we're good to go." 

40 minutes ago, AnywhereButHere said:

I like this timing because it helps keep up the momentum. She rode the shock and awe of Biden dropping out and endorsing her. Then when that wave slowed, there was the convention giving another boost. Next was the Cheneys’ endorsement. Now we have her awesome debate performance (thank god…) and a Taylor Swift endorsement. It keeps the interest peaked rather than front loading and having a die off and lethargy setting in on the back end. 

I believe this was coordinated with the campaign. 

Putting it after the debate is meant to shut down arguments about Swift not having done research, not even having seen Kamala debate, etc. 

The second part of the timing is to completely obliterate any positive coverage he might have gotten out of the news cycle by having her do this on debate night. And, it is timed to make sure it hits the news cycle while people are still watching. I think, based on this timing, we can assume that Swift has been in contact with the Harris campaign for quite a while to coordinate this. 

[Smee]

I think the timing from Swift was ideal. The news site I read (in Aus) had the news of her endorsement mingled into its live debate coverage, and there will be links all over the place between articles about her and dissection of the debate. Let's face it: there are plenty of people "not into politics" who didn't watch the debate and will get their impression from clips and comments. Rightly or wrongly (wrongly) politics has changed and social media is a major factor in that.  All the example clips being shared in this thread, the one liners and facial expressions and deliberate pauses - all those play very well to a younger audience. Swift's endorsement will help push the right content on the algorithms, getting her fans to share more of that stuff and she gets to keep her own brand trending at a time when a lot of people are online.

I'm very curious, when there's an inevitable bump in the polls in Harris's favour, how much that will be attributed to her debate performance vs Swift's endorsement.

[moreorlessnu]

I was surprised more people didn't jump on the fact that trump said, "She put out" during his response when asked about questioning Harris' race. Isn't that slang for saying a woman had sex with someone? 

[WatchingTheTireFireBurn]

2 hours ago, moreorlessnu said:

I was surprised more people didn't jump on the fact that trump said, "She put out" during his response when asked about questioning Harris' race. Isn't that slang for saying a woman had sex with someone? 

I think in that instance he meant "she put it out there that...." or "she put out statements that said...."

I'm sure he *would* say something like that if wanted but it makes sense that he's saying that she indicated that X.   

For any non familiar with American slang who might be reading - yes to say "she put out" can mean to have sex but usually it's a positive, bragging statement like "woo hoo, I went on a date and she put out- on the 1st date"  or if you want to shame somebody a guy might say "ugh. don't date her she doesn't put out unless it's exclusive"

It's a pretty mild comment and kind of old school along the lines of "good girls."

I've never heard it to mean anything especially demeaning so I think if trump was going to slur using sexual language it would be much nastier. 

[kpmom]

What I’m hoping she’ll do now is several town hall type Q&A’s and really talk policy, and how her policies differ from her opponent. 
 
Even if TFG was willing to do another debate, I think taking questions from voters would go far to really show people what her plans and  priorities are. I don’t know how much she could do that at another debate. Use the fact that he doesn’t want another debate to her advantage. 
 

She’d still be able to get her digs in, “Unlike my opponent I have more than a concept of a plan.”, and really show how vastly she differs from Trump, who just has rallies for his base, and puts crazy posts  up on social media. 
 

 

[WatchingTheTireFireBurn]

I think she needs to talk less about trump. People are saying they don't know her and don't know about her. People know about trump and the people who are really against trump already support her. It looks like she's stooping to his level to spend so much time throwing barbs. Apparently she insulted trump more during the debate than trump insulted her according to somebody's accounting (per robert reich's youtube video today)  - which makes sense to me. She spent a lot of time commenting on him and his crazy. But that was wasted time. People know he's crazy and for some reason that's not a NO for them. So why point it out? - she had valuable minutes wasted she could have talked policy or substance.

Her responses sounded canned - many people have said this online on different non-democrat or nonpolitical forums I've looked at. Then I watched some speech clips the next day(??) and it was exactly the same talking points said in exactly the same way. She's got a list memorized that she brings out - my mom raised me middle class we didn't buy a house til I was a teen, the neighbor lady who helped babysit us was a small business owner, my friend who was sexually abused, I'm a prosecutor who went after XYZ people...Even if I hadn't already heard this over and over from her - happening to have a friend or family member you can trot out for each talking point one by one - it sounds insincere. 

"ah yes excellent question about X, I just so happen to have a friend who experienced X...."

(and yes I realize nothing trump says is sincere or sounds sincere...but like I said trump is a known quantity, people know what they're signing up for there. But they're not sure about Harris and I'm not sure she's making the case to people who aren't sure)

 

[Antimony]

On 9/14/2024 at 10:44 AM, WatchingTheTireFireBurn said:

I think she needs to talk less about trump. People are saying they don't know her and don't know about her. People know about trump and the people who are really against trump already support her. It looks like she's stooping to his level to spend so much time throwing barbs. Apparently she insulted trump more during the debate than trump insulted her according to somebody's accounting (per robert reich's youtube video today)  - which makes sense to me. She spent a lot of time commenting on him and his crazy. But that was wasted time. People know he's crazy and for some reason that's not a NO for them. So why point it out? - she had valuable minutes wasted she could have talked policy or substance.

Her responses sounded canned - many people have said this online on different non-democrat or nonpolitical forums I've looked at. Then I watched some speech clips the next day(??) and it was exactly the same talking points said in exactly the same way. She's got a list memorized that she brings out - my mom raised me middle class we didn't buy a house til I was a teen, the neighbor lady who helped babysit us was a small business owner, my friend who was sexually abused, I'm a prosecutor who went after XYZ people...Even if I hadn't already heard this over and over from her - happening to have a friend or family member you can trot out for each talking point one by one - it sounds insincere. 

"ah yes excellent question about X, I just so happen to have a friend who experienced X...."

(and yes I realize nothing trump says is sincere or sounds sincere...but like I said trump is a known quantity, people know what they're signing up for there. But they're not sure about Harris and I'm not sure she's making the case to people who aren't sure)

 

I think there is a reason for this sounding canned and I think it might actually be a decent campaign strategy.

Anyone on this forum pays more attention to politics than the average American. People do need to get to know Kamala. 

So, her campaign has narrowed in on these stories and they are canned and memorized like this because any inconsistency, even those of natural story telling, will be attacked. 

They want to get clips of her saying these out, but the average person is only going to see one or two. Not all of them. It's only weird when you see all of them. But if you are politically inclined enough to consume that much political content, you're probably already decided. 

I think it's a case of extreme message editing which, yea, I also find repetitive, but I'm way too locked in because I'm spending a lot of my time consuming and trying to promote (blue) media content. 

And, FWIW, people don't know he's crazy. People think Trump looks strong. And, to be fair, he has gotten quite a few politicians (Cruz, you dogshit coward!) to lick his boots. I also think there was a good strategy reason she spent that time attacking him because not being willing to attack him will look weak. Debates are not actually about policy, they've never actually been about policy. 

Usually, when something from her campaign irks me...well, it's a couple of issues. Her campaign is well funded and has Obama campaign advisers, which means lots of data and focus groups, so if something from her campaign comes off this way to you (and it does to me too) it often isn't for us. 

[WatchingTheTireFireBurn]

9 minutes ago, Antimony said:

I think there is a reason for this sounding canned and I think it might actually be a decent campaign strategy.

Anyone on this forum pays more attention to politics than the average American. People do need to get to know Kamala. 

So, her campaign has narrowed in on these stories and they are canned and memorized like this because any inconsistency, even those of natural story telling, will be attacked. 

They want to get clips of her saying these out, but the average person is only going to see one or two. Not all of them. It's only weird when you see all of them. But if you are politically inclined enough to consume that much political content, you're probably already decided. 

I think it's a case of extreme message editing which, yea, I also find repetitive, but I'm way too locked in because I'm spending a lot of my time consuming and trying to promote (blue) media content. 

And, FWIW, people don't know he's crazy. People think Trump looks strong. And, to be fair, he has gotten quite a few politicians (Cruz, you dogshit coward!) to lick his boots. I also think there was a good strategy reason she spent that time attacking him because not being willing to attack him will look weak. Debates are not actually about policy, they've never actually been about policy. 

Usually, when something from her campaign irks me...well, it's a couple of issues. Her campaign is well funded and has Obama campaign advisers, which means lots of data and focus groups, so if something from her campaign comes off this way to you (and it does to me too) it often isn't for us. 

Actually, I was clued into people saying she sounded over rehearsed and her messages didn't sound genuine/heartfelt or just memorized talking points on the republican reddit boards and some non political forums I read on the debate night.  

I hadn't put my finger on it myself until I started reading other people talking about it, but once you notice it, it seems glaring.

At first I was confused when people were saying she sounded over rehearsed - what does that "sound" like anyway? But now that I've caught other clips and seen parts of the debate again I see what people are saying. It's like they drilled these talking points so much - if he says A, use talking point 4. If he says B use talking point 6. It's robotic. I've seen a lot of comments from supposedly undecided voters that she dodged all the important questions they wanted her to answer and instead made barbs at trump.

I don't know guys - I think among democrats the Harris enthusiasm is still pretty high but I don't see it anywhere else. I'm seeing more and more "Harris is doing everything AMAZING, it's going to be a landslide! the young people! the women!" talking points rather than being realistic.  I work with some mid- 20 year olds who are masters level educated. They do not care about the election. They are people of color and women...and they could not care less and barely seem to know who Harris is. The Taylor Swift endorsement was largely buried under the debate news and would be totally off the news now if Trump hadn't just tweeted he hates Swift. I'm seeing trump signs starting to appear around me where I hadn't seen any before.  The news is still all trump all the time which normalizes him and makes him seem "popular."

I'm very concerned. I'm more concerned now than before the debate. 

2 minutes ago, WatchingTheTireFireBurn said:

Actually, I was clued into people saying she sounded over rehearsed and her messages didn't sound genuine/heartfelt or just memorized talking points on the republican reddit boards and some non political forums I read on the debate night.  

I hadn't put my finger on it myself until I started reading other people talking about it, but once you notice it, it seems glaring.

At first I was confused when people were saying she sounded over rehearsed - what does that "sound" like anyway? But now that I've caught other clips and seen parts of the debate again I see what people are saying. It's like they drilled these talking points so much - if he says A, use talking point 4. If he says B use talking point 6. It's robotic. I've seen a lot of comments from supposedly undecided voters that she dodged all the important questions they wanted her to answer and instead made barbs at trump.

I don't know guys - I think among democrats the Harris enthusiasm is still pretty high but I don't see it anywhere else. I'm seeing more and more "Harris is doing everything AMAZING, it's going to be a landslide! the young people! the women!" talking points rather than being realistic.  I work with some mid- 20 year olds who are masters level educated. They do not care about the election. They are people of color and women...and they could not care less and barely seem to know who Harris is. The Taylor Swift endorsement was largely buried under the debate news and would be totally off the news now if Trump hadn't just tweeted he hates Swift. I'm seeing trump signs starting to appear around me where I hadn't seen any before.  The news is still all trump all the time which normalizes him and makes him seem "popular."

I'm very concerned. I'm more concerned now than before the debate. 

Edit to add - for what it's worth I live in a swing state and in a 60dem/40rep% 2020 and 55dem/41rep% 2016 county. I am very worried we're returning to 2016 or before with respect to political division where I live. 

[Smee]

8 hours ago, WatchingTheTireFireBurn said:

I don't know guys - I think among democrats the Harris enthusiasm is still pretty high but I don't see it anywhere else. I'm seeing more and more "Harris is doing everything AMAZING, it's going to be a landslide! the young people! the women!" talking points rather than being realistic.  I work with some mid- 20 year olds who are masters level educated. They do not care about the election. They are people of color and women...and they could not care less and barely seem to know who Harris is. The Taylor Swift endorsement was largely buried under the debate news and would be totally off the news now if Trump hadn't just tweeted he hates Swift. I'm seeing trump signs starting to appear around me where I hadn't seen any before.  The news is still all trump all the time which normalizes him and makes him seem "popular."

I'm very concerned. I'm more concerned now than before the debate. 

I don't think it's going to be a landslide. I think she'll comfortably win the popular vote, but as far as electoral college goes the reputable polls show them neck and neck, within the margin of error. I think it's going to be a tight, bloody, difficult race and there is a very real possibility that she won't get the win she deserves. However, I think she's doing the right things and her campaign is being run by smarter, more experienced people than I, who are not taking anything for granted. I am enthusiastic about her because I think she's the best chance you've got and if she wins, she will be a great President. 

But to Antimony's point, when you say you came across the criticism of Harris being 'rehearsed' on Republican subreddits, know that those people too are more invested in politics than the average. The unconcerned 20-somethings you work with might be a better gauge of whether the talking points are too repetitive (but don't phrase it like that if/when you ask them!), because the reason for repetition is to cut through once or twice to those folks who, as you say, barely seem to know who Harris is. Strategically, I think that's also part of the reason Trump hardly ever uses her name and referred to her as 'her' throughout the whole debate - make her sound like a nobody, remind people that they know who HE is and have heard his name eleventy billion times, who is this weak little random challenger? I remember when Trump first entered the race and people who followed politics thought it was laughable at first, someone said he was only ahead in the polls for the Republican primary because of name recognition, and once the the field narrowed he would be out. That person was wrong about the latter, but I think there's some truth to the former. It's the reasoning behind yard signs, right? They tell you nothing about policy, but give you a name to remember/recognise when you get to the ballot paper.

[LongTimeLurkerOG]

On 9/13/2024 at 10:25 AM, kpmom said:

What I’m hoping she’ll do now is several town hall type Q&A’s and really talk policy, and how her policies differ from her opponent. 
 
Even if TFG was willing to do another debate, I think taking questions from voters would go far to really show people what her plans and  priorities are. I don’t know how much she could do that at another debate. Use the fact that he doesn’t want another debate to her advantage. 
 

She’d still be able to get her digs in, “Unlike my opponent I have more than a concept of a plan.”, and really show how vastly she differs from Trump, who just has rallies for his base, and puts crazy posts  up on social media. 
 

 

There's a virtual rally w Oprah this week; look at campaign site and/or DNC 

[AnywhereButHere]

She did an interview with the NABJ (which was markedly different than Trump’s - needless to say…). 
 

https://open.substack.com/pub/statuskuo/p/messengers-on-and-off-point?r=gc6me&utm_medium=ios

Quote

There might not be another debate between Trump and Harris before Election Day, but that doesn’t mean we can’t perform some useful side by side comparisons. The candidates made that easy by both appearing in public yesterday to answer questions, with Harris doing an interview with the National Association of Black Journalists and Trump delivering a town hall in Michigan.
Many argue Kamala Harris should do more interviews, and perhaps they have a point, especially if she performs as well as she did on Tuesday. Some of the press, of course, still found fault with her delivery. This headline from Politico could have been written by the New York Times Pitchbot:

Just to be clear, when a male candidate does this, it’s called being “disciplined” and “on message.” The fact is, Harris was relatable, prepared, yet passionate in her responses, even through some pretty tough questioning.

Harris demonstrates her substantive chops
The debate didn’t provide Harris much opportunity to speak in detail about her priorities, policies and governing philosophies, but we got plenty of that in her interview yesterday before the NABJ.
Right out the gate, she was asked about the economy and given a chance to answer what she admittedly dodged in the debate: Are we better off than we were four years ago?
Harris made the case for why we actually are, explaining that when they came into office, they were cleaning up a big mess left by the prior administration’s mismanagement of Covid, where millions had been thrown out of work and a pandemic was raging. Further, Trump had just tried to overturn the election through a violent insurrection at the Capitol. Harris laid out how they had created 16 million jobs, including 800,000 manufacturing jobs, with unemployment at historic lows, including Black unemployment. She touted how the administration had lowered the price of insulin to $35 for seniors and capped out of pocket drug expenses for them at $2,000. And they authorized Medicare to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies to bring down the price of prescription drugs. At the same time, she acknowledged that the price of groceries remains too high and that there is more work to do.
 

She spoke about the need for sensible gun safety laws. She cited specifically her support of background checks to see if a potential gun purchaser has a history that should raise any concerns, how she favors a ban on assault style weapons, and how she wants to close the gun show loophole for firearm purchases.
Her passion on the subject of abortion was evident when she spoke about the tragic death of Amber Thurman, who was denied medical care in Georgia under its new abortion ban. And she reminded the audience that Donald Trump had called the ban that took Thurman’s life a “beautiful thing.”
She addressed reports that Black men aren’t supporting the Democratic Party as strongly as in elections past. “I think it’s very important to not operate from the assumption that Black men are in anybody’s pocket. Black men are like any other voting group. You got to earn their vote so I’m working to earn the vote. Not assuming I’m going to have it because I am Black,” Harris said.
 

I only caught the end of it, but the part I did see was detailed and on point, so I think she’s heading in a good direction.