11 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
Deutschmeister's avatar

"Kamala Harris sat down with 60 Minutes over the weekend for an interview that aired last night. And, if you watched it, you probably came away noting that it was, overall, pretty normal. A tough set of questions on immigration; a broadside attack on Trump for ducking the program; some insight into her view of the war in Ukraine. (You can read WaPo’s four takeaways here.) And that was that. Her campaign clearly was happy about it. They pushed around clips. Which invites the question: Why wasn’t she doing these sooner?"

Show of hands: how many of you care about why she wasn't doing one-on-one interviews sooner? (checks audience) Seeing none, or nearly so, I conclude that this is a non-issue, simply the media playing the card for its own purposes. Far-right outlets like to talk it up purely to whip up the passions of their viewers and listeners. Center and left broadcasters sound too much like teenage girls, jealous that the homecoming king/football team quarterback flirted with some other girl instead of them.

If Harris had done more interviews instead of so many rallies, there is no guarantee that she would be in a better place now in the polls, and cynics likely would be saying, "Instead of holding all those interviews, she should be out on the campaign trail, meeting and talking to the voters more directly." It seems Harris' strategy so far has worked quite well. I trust in it. Maybe the talking heads should give her some earned benefit of the doubt as well.

Expand full comment
Will G's avatar

I think Harris and her campaign team have done a great job that has exceeded all expectations. The condensed time frame has probably been to her benefit but imagine the enormous effort to do what they've done so far? When would they have squeezed in all these interviews people are questioning she hasn't done? Well here they are... it's like the last phase of this condensed campaign and as has been pointed out... some of these "smaller" media appearances will actually give Harris far more exposure with undecided voters than more appearances on CNN or Fox etc....

I think things will lean more in her direction as Harris and Walz along with the ground game in place do a final blitz, compared to the Republican "strategy" to step up lies, misinformation that hurts hurricane struck areas that are pushed back on by Republican governors! Talking more about the future is project 2025 a non winner. Sometimes watching main stream media is like watching South Park. Next time you hear the obvious questions just imagine them coming from South Park characters. "Do you think it's ok to call the VP mentally ill?"

Expand full comment
Migs's avatar

God you are saying what I have been saying for a year. ANYONE WHO WATCHES 60 MINUTES ALREADY KNOWS WHO THEY ARE VOTING FOR. this reaches no one threat is undecided. Just baffling that the political media doesn’t realize that because for years they have been giving their customers what they want those customers already are going to vote for Harris or Trump. Maddening.

Expand full comment
SandyG's avatar

Of course, re the 60 Min program. But it's the clips from the interview that make it to TikTok and FB, which is where most people get their "news". Those will reach the swing voters in the swing states.

Expand full comment
Migs's avatar

Hard disagree. Those interviews are boring. What gets shared is stuff on Rogan, stern, Comedy Central, etc. cnn clips are not being shared widely on fb or ticktok

Expand full comment
StPaulgrl's avatar

Harris should not get caught up in MSM questions about specific policy details because the theme of her campaign is uniting a large and politically diverse coalition of Americans who chose our constitutional democracy over Trumpism to move America forward.

Expand full comment
zedsdead's avatar

even the Bulwark wont give her credit.. its either shes not doing enough or why didnt she do it sooner ? Its a no win situation that even the Bulwark refuses to separate itself from the MSM nonsense.

Expand full comment
knowltok's avatar

"When did you stop beating your wife?"

Not directed at you, just that common example (In case anyone wasn't clear)

Expand full comment
Edward Simpson's avatar

She's also assembled a pretty experienced team of campaign managers and advisers, one that was successful in electing the country's first Black Prez. I'm hoping they're correctly reading the tea leaves this time around as well.

Expand full comment
SandyG's avatar

I found her responses wanting, except for changing the question with an answer noting our support is for the Isreali people, implying that it's not their current government. That was skillfull. Otherwise, she didn't answer the tougher questions. Her team should have trained her to answer, then pivot. If they didn't, they're not so great. If they did, she's not so great as a political performer.

I also thought she sounded defensive, like she did in the disatrous Lester Holt interview. That codes more for viewers than any of the words she said.

Expand full comment
J AZ's avatar

Meister - your last paragraph is all fact! Short and sweeeeeet

Expand full comment