Harris/Walz first interview. Did it hurt or help their campaign?

1. 96

   Readmikenowposted 6 weeks ago

   Did anyone see the CNN interview of harris/walz?
   
   What was walz doing there in the first place?  She is the one running for president and this is her FIRST interview since designated as the democrat nominee for president.  He has been referred to as her emotional-support white guy.
   
   I thought is was a train wreck.  harris refuses to admit she knew something was wrong with biden...which was a big mistake.
   
   She again provided a word-salad with "keeping deadlines based on time."  What are they supposed to be based on?  Wind speed?
   
   She looked weak, and not too knowledgeable on anything.
   
   I think the interview will be the beginning of the end for her and walz.  Now that she was coronated by the democrat party the American people will begin to look closer at her. 
   
   This CNN interview is but a small taste of what they'll discover.

   replyreport
   1. 85

      Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

      You read my mind—LOL. I was just thinking about how little Kamala Harris is discussed on this forum. Isn't that strange? I mean, she is one of the candidates, after all.
      
      To be honest, I did watch her interview. I always try to stay open-minded and listen to as many interviews, rallies, and town halls as possible to understand what both candidates are offering. Trump had a town hall yesterday with Tulsi Gabbard. The audience asked questions, and in my opinion, Trump answered them directly and transparently. You might not always like his answers, but at least you get his unfiltered view.
      
      By the time the first commercial break came, I had already switched channels. Kamala Harris appeared nervous and rehearsed, without offering any real substance behind her promises. She repeated the same points she’s been making for the past month without explaining how she would convince Congress to support her lofty proposals. When she talked about not changing her values, it felt disingenuous. A quick look at her 2019 campaign clips shows a clear mismatch between her past positions and what she’s saying now. She seems like a typical politician who will promise anything people want to hear, despite knowing there’s little chance of actually achieving any of it. ( I did watch the remainder of the interview this AM.)
      
      Here is my perspective on Kamala Harris's interview with Dana Bash I argue that Harris seemed unprepared and evasive when responding to direct questions.  She frequently pivoted away from specifics, instead relying on broad statements that lacked substance.  I interpret her body language and tone as defensive, suggesting a lack of confidence in her positions or policies.  Additionally, her responses may have appeared rehearsed, giving the impression that she was more focused on delivering talking points than engaging in a genuine discussion. This approach seemed like a missed opportunity to clearly articulate her vision and effectively address concerns, potentially undermining public trust in her leadership. She was unimpressive because she answered questions with vague information and failed to provide any realistic plan for how she would achieve her wishlist. The questions were superficial, and I was hoping Bash would address more on Harris's record as Vice President. It was clear that the questions were carefully selected, with Bash occasionally stepping in to help Harris by offering multiple-choice-style answers.

      replyreport
      1. 96

         Readmikenowposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

         To me she appeared not to be someone who wants the job of president.  There was no enthusiasm or desire to discuss what she would do as president.  There was no excitement about the campaign from her or walz.
         
         I agree, she did seem nervous.

         replyreport
         1. 85

            Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            Her demeanor was that of a "deer in the headlights".  She did not at all possess the enthusiasm she did at recent rallies.  I think she needs a teleprompter to guide her. Otherwise, she is nervous and repeats herself. and gives no real substantive answers to questions.   This will not float in a one-on-one debate.

            replyreport
   2. 87

      tsmogposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

      "Did anyone see the CNN interview of harris/walz?"
      
      Nope! I don't get all those fancy channels. How may people do you think watched it? I found the transcript online if I want to read it, however no body language. Is that important?
      
      I have seen article after article including Fox News titles saying the 'Key Takeaways blah, blah, blah'. I'll probably pick and choose from amongst them and keep an eye out on Facebook for memes. I checked and don't see any YouTube of the interview, yet.

      replyreport
      1. 91

         IslandBitesposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

         Here
         
         Part 1
         
         Part 2
         
         Part 3

         replyreport
         1. 96

            Readmikenowposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            So, do you think it helped or hurt her campaign?

            replyreport
         2. 87

            tsmogposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            A big thanks! I peeked seeing about a half-hour's worth of content. Is that about the length of the full interview. I will watch them this Sat afternoon after an In-n-Out double-double with fries. Then may come back and comment, though it has been tainted somewhat. I read this forum as well as a few articles from sources on both sides of the fence.
            
            

            replyreport
2. 69

   abwilliamsposted 6 weeks ago

   There was an interview!?! Just kidding. I haven't had the chance to watch it yet, I'll get back with you on this.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      Ken Burgessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

      Save your time and get to the juicy demolishing of it by others:
      
      Kamala BOMBS First Interview, SPIRALS OUT of Control
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_KL_sE_oS0

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Willowarborposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

         LMFAO, if anyone calls this a bomb, what do they call any of Trump's interviews /speeches? Actually anytime he opens his mouth?
         
         I'm baffled by the sudden expectation of exceptional oratory skills from a candidate

         replyreport
         1. 96

            Readmikenowposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            Well, he has so many.  President Donald Trump does interviews and speaks with reporters all by himself....daily.  No emotional support VP nearby for him.  He does is off the cuff and unscripted.
            
            harris, on the other hand, got the questions ahead of time, had an interview that was recorded and edited.  The first one in over 30 days of being designated the democrat president nominee.
            
            President Donald Trump is real.  harris, even when scripted and edited, looks bad.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               Willowarborposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

               Do you have some sort of citation for the claim that she received the questions ahead of time?  A statement from cnn?
               
               Also, did CNN ask to interview Harris and  Walz together?

               replyreport
3. 75

   Kathleen Cochranposted 6 weeks ago

   I have zero expectations that the folks who reply to this post will find any redeeming quality in these two candidates.

   replyreport
   1. 81

      Kathryn L Hillposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

      The folks who reply to this post will either be for her or against her before their first letter is keyboarded.
      Are you for her?
      I am so against her it feels like a barrier. Like the 12 foot high fence that Governor Newsom erected all the along the So Cal Coast preventing anyone from exercising on the sand, swimming in the water or surfing.
      
      Why do I mention Newsom?
      Because Walz/Harris are of the same ilk. Puppets of some blue blob which will eventually take form. What will the form be? Communism, Control, Totalitarianism. Many here, who are from dictatorship-run countries, are alarmed. They see the same tactics being used to over take this country, secretly and quietly before we can even really know what we have submitted to. But some of us are awake and some of us can see what they are trying to pull. Some of have eyes that see and ears that hear.
      
      Kamala is probably a drunk as someone on You tube pointed out, as he revealed the clips of all her weird laughing and talking, (made perfect sense,) and as far as I know, her condition will get worse and worse and worse. She knows what she is, how she got there and what she is doing. I surmise it is against her conscience, which she might have somewhere deep in her subconscious mind. I will not watch her debates in sheer heartfelt pity for her. I am very sorry for Biden too. These people are not in touch with their minds or souls. They are people taken over. If you observe the audience members of the Kamala rallies you will see blank stares, people with wandering focus and apparent no self-direction as they listen to utterly impossible policies that somehow offer "hope and change and now JOY with smiling faces and clapping hands.
      Why? because they were told to believe such garbage. I feel sorry for that part of the THE NATION. Hopefully it is less than half.
      Way less.
      If our vote even counts at this point.

      replyreport
   2. 70

      Ken Burgessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

      They are just figureheads for a movement/government they will NOT be in control of... that is what anyone has to assume after the fiasco of the past few years under a Biden Administration, where it is clear the President is not the one running the country.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Kathryn L Hillposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

         ~ the blob? Is the blob running the country today?
         I just love that term.

         replyreport
         1. 81

            Kathryn L Hillposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            Who cannot agree? or is this STILL considered a conspiracy theory?
            https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/361 … s-the-blob

            replyreport
   3. 82

      GA Andersonposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

      I have found one—a part I liked—her answer to the Israel question. It was definitive.
      
      If I were to speculate, and I must, I must. It looks like the Democrats have decided the demands of the Progressive Left are less important now. Feels like a calculation weighing the need for the Independent & Moderate undecideds and the anti-Israel faction of the Progressive Left. The Left came in second.
      
      GA

      replyreport
4. 70

   Ken Burgessposted 6 weeks ago

   And just think, the interviewer GAVE her half the answers right after she asked the question, they GAVE her the questions that were going to be asked ahead of time, and conducted the interview to make her look GOOD.
   
   And that was the result, the best she will ever do, or look, in an interview... imagine what it is going to look like when it is her VS. Trump in a debate.
   
   Yeah... they aren't going to do one... and they will do everything they can to say its Trump's fault.

   replyreport
5. 59

   Willowarborposted 6 weeks ago

   Harris and  Trump are held to outrageously different standards and it's getting more evident by the day.
   
   If Trump had ever done an interview half as good as this one, people would be falling all over themselves talking about how he turned over a new leaf. 
   
   I thought Harris looked comfortable.  She came across as serious, thoughtful and knowledgeable. 
   
   Very plainly put, Trump talks nonsense out of both sides of his ass every time he gets in front of people. It's like open mic night at the assisted living center.
   
   I'd like to see the same detailed analysis applied to Trump's interviews/speeches as have been to Harris. 
   
   Discourse is difficult when folks equate a standard political interview to the crap done Trump has done in just the last 48 hours:
   
   Breaking the law at Arlington National cemetery.
   
   Accusing the guard who tried to stop them from breaking the law as being despicable and having a mental breakdown.
   
   Claiming that if Jesus counted the ballots in California he would win.
   
   If elected wants to use the power of the federal government to force insurance companies to pay for IVF.
   
   Posting a photo of his political adversaries in prison, posting that Obama should be subjected to military tribunal, posting a photo saying that Harris gave bj's to get where she is, posting  qanon slogans and phrases. 
   
   As far as Dana Bash?   She is what journalism has become. Reading Republican talking points and expecting Democrats to respond to them.
   
   Also just another thought on  what has ruined journalism?
   
   The attitude  "I can bully this candidate but have to kiss the other one's ass or else I'll get death threats"
   
   Okey dokey folks.

   replyreport
   1. 81

      Kathryn L Hillposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

      The other side is offering Totalitarianism.  At least Trump is not. He is fighting it. End of story.

      replyreport
6. 96

   Readmikenowposted 6 weeks ago

   After the CNN interview...the betting world is now betting on President Donald Trump to win in November.
   
   "Kamala Harris' Election Odds Slide With Bookmakers After CNN Interview
   
   Kamala Harris's odds of winning the 2024 presidential election deteriorated noticeably after her CNN interview, which took place along with running mate Tim Walz, on Thursday evening, according to two leading bookmakers.
   
   The vice president went from being the favorite to win with odds of 10/11 (52.4 percent) on Thursday to tied with Donald Trump on 19/20 (51.3 percent) each on Friday morning, according to the Star Sports betting company. Over the same period, Trump's odds of victory in November improved from 21/20 (48.8 percent) before the interview to 20/21 (51.2 percent), according to U.K. based bookmaker Betfair.
   
   Speaking to Newsweek, Star Sports betting analyst William Kedjanyi said: "Vice President Harris is now tied at 19/20 with Republican candidate Donald Trump, drifting slightly from 10/11 yesterday. The Californian had been 5/6 in recent weeks but she has failed to surge ahead of Trump in the market.
   
   "GOP supporters will hope Trump can now go on to tip the balance in his favor, before November's presidential election."
   
   Betfair spokesperson Sam Rosbottom commented: "Before Kamala Harris' sit-down interview with CNN overnight, the Betfair Exchange market had more or less been neck and neck.
   
   "While the lead in the betting has flip flopped throughout August, momentum is now with Trump and he has become the odds-on favorite again after being backed into 21/20."
   
   https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics … &ei=23

   replyreport
7. 96

   Readmikenowposted 6 weeks ago

   This is how they saw the harris/walz CNN interview in Australia.
   
   "Joke of a network’: CNN blasted for Kamala Harris ‘puff piece’ montage"
   
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sj7nTIBEzSs
   
   "Masterful propaganda’: Sky News host analyses Kamala's interview with CNN"
   
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c--L0cI___8

   replyreport
8. 75

   Kathleen Cochranposted 6 weeks ago

   There are many reasons I will vote for Harris.
   
   Number 1: She is not a convicted felon.
   
   That should be the #1 reason for every American.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      Ken Burgessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

      The convictions by a corrupt politically motivated NY court system have no impact on my decision making, other than to inform me the country is very near to being beyond salvation and soon likely to be infringing on ALL our rights, as we see the governments of Venezuela and Brazil and Canada, etc. doing to its populace today.
      
      For Americans used to critical thinking and considering the reasons why behind such things, it may be the ONLY reason to vote for Trump... there are others... but the efforts to use the Justice system (FBI included) to destroy Trump and all those around him who didn't turn on him to save their own skins is the biggest reason we have had in decades TO vote for someone.
      
      If our votes even matter at this point.

      replyreport
      1. 96

         Readmikenowposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

         Ken,
         
         Why doesn't the left actually read about the trial?
         
         Many democrats I speak with don't seem to comprehend you can't convict a person in a state court of a federal crime.  That is what was done in the case of President Donald Trump.
         
         A crime the federal government examined and came to the conclusion there was no offense committed.  Then, there was the evidence that was not permitted to be admitted during the trial that would have changed everything.
         
         ALL of this has been written about in various publications both on the left and the right.  Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard Law Professor and lifelong dedicated Democrat has written more than one scathing article about that trial and has given more than one interview about how awful that trial was for the New York legal system.
         
         He is not the only one on the left to take this view.
         
         As far as I'm concerned a conviction by a corrupt court system is no conviction at all.

         replyreport
         1. 70

            Ken Burgessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            Loyalty to the Party baby.
            
            Better to be with those who are enjoying the riches that life can bring, than wallow in the squalor left for all the deplorables.
            
            Better to be on the side of those sending people to the gulags, than being the starving farmers wondering why their cattle have been taken and their fields left fallow.
            
            Better to be on the side confiscating homes and businesses from the lowlife racist deplorables that own them, than be the one losing their home, business or job.
            
            You know how it is, we have plenty of examples of moments like this in human history.
            
            But this time... they think they have the technology to pull it off, pretty soon (if not already) everything you say, everywhere you go, everything you do will be known.  This time it will work... this transformation of America will work!
            
            It will not have the suffering of Stalinism or the revolution of Pol Pot.
            
            This time we will reach new heights of equality and justice for all.

            replyreport
   2. 81

      Kathryn L Hillposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

      Meanwhile, you are enjoying the reports of immigrants flooding into the country causing all sorts of problems for citizens?
      
      She is completely responsible for the border situation.
      Biden delegated the responsibility to her.
      She shouldn't even be allowed to run for President since she has failed to follow the Constitutional mandate that the United States protect the states from invasion.
      
      "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
      
      BTW It is a felony to enter the country illegally.
      
      "While immigration violations are considered civil offenses, §§ 1325 and 1326 are misdemeanor and felony violations, respectively, in the criminal context. Under federal law, people who enter or reenter the United States without authorization are subject not only to civil immigration detention and deportation proceedings but also to criminal sanctions. In other words, after being charged with § 1326, for example, an individual with prior convictions could be put in federal prison for up to a 20-year sentence. After completing their sentence, these individuals are often picked up by ICE, and subsequently deported for the same crime."
      from:
      https://nipnlg.org/unauthorized-entry-r … osecutions

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Willowarborposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

         Border Patrol encounters along the Southwest border have dropped by more than 50% since February 2024.
         
         In January 2021, Trump’s final month in office, there were 75,316 Border Patrol encounters along the Southwest border. That is well above the 56,408 encounters reported in July 2024 under the Biden administration.
         
         Who thinks that Congress maybe should take some action to enact legislation that keeps this trend moving in the right direction ?
         Before the courts invalidate Biden's recent executive order?
         
         
         https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartande … in-office/

         replyreport
         1. 96

            Readmikenowposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            The number of illegal immigrants in the country has roughly doubled under President Biden. The United States had some 10.2 million illegal immigrants in 2020, and another 10 million have entered during Biden’s presidency. If the 20 million illegal immigrants were all in one state, it would be tied with New York for the fourth most populated state.
            
            According to Pew Research, there were only 3.5 million “unauthorized immigrants” — Pew’s term — living in the U.S. in 1990. That number peaked at 12.2 million in 2005, then gradually declined, including during the Trump years, to 10.2 million in 2019.
            
            What about during the Biden years? According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the Border Patrol had some 8.5 million illegal immigrant “encounters” from fiscal 2021 through November. 
            
            Besides the 8.5 million encounters, there are those who entered the U.S. illegally with the express intent of avoiding detection. Estimates put that number at 1.7 million “gotaways” over the past three years, which gives us the 10 million estimate.
            
            https://thehill.com/opinion/4423296-mat … the-start/

            replyreport
            1. 85

               Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

               Mike, To further add to your point ---    nothing speaks louder than a statistic chart. This chart is sobering, and I am not sure how anyone can deny this horrendous problem this administration has caused.
               
               

               replyreport
9. 75

   Kathleen Cochranposted 6 weeks ago

   Y'all keep telling yourselves that.

   replyreport
10. 75

    Kathleen Cochranposted 6 weeks ago

    Nobody expected the GOP followers to find anything but fault with the interview. Next . . .

    replyreport
    1. 85

       Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

       Kathleen,      Most people here have shared their thoughts on the interview in one way or another. I'd be interested in hearing your perspective, especially as a supporter of Harris. Many of the comments so far seem to come from Trump supporters, so I'm curious—what did you think of the interview itself?  If you don't mind sharing.

       replyreport
11. 59

    Willowarborposted 6 weeks ago

    The reasons that migrants chose to come to the border in 2021(and thereafter )are as varied at the people themselves.
    
    "Many individuals from Guatemala and Honduras left because of growing food instability following years of drought and two major hurricanes which hit the countries in 2020 and devastated cropland. In March 2021, the World Food Program declared that millions of Hondurans and Guatemalans were in a nationwide “Crisis level” for food insecurity, with nearly one million people nearing the level of a famine.  Violence and impunity also continued to be an issue throughout the region, causing many to leave."
    
    "Others left due to escalating political instability and persecution in their home countries. For example, arrivals of Nicaraguans rose dramatically throughout the year as the government of Daniel Ortega cracked down politically and jailed opponents. Asylum seekers from Cuba also increased significantly through 2021, following mass political protests throughout the country and a corresponding crackdown"
    
    '"Thus, despite the focus on the United States and on the actions of President Biden, migration increased across the entire hemisphere in 2021."
    
    In terms of  border encounter numbers, let's not forget the impact of title 42 on that count.
    
    "Title 42 caused a massive increase in repeat border crossings, inflating apprehension numbers . "
    
    Due to post-COVID changes made at the Department of Justice in spring 2020, individuals who crossed the border for the first time under Title 42 were largely exempt from federal prosecution for misdemeanor “improper entry.”. Therefore they were able to attempt over and over and over. And they did.
    
    'The phenomenon of increased repeat crossings under Title 42 also created a distorted picture of the total number of people crossing the border. For example, through the first nine months of  2021, when CBP recorded a total of 1,119,204 border encounters, the number of “unique encounters” (people who have not been taken into custody in the previous 12 months) was 690,718.
    
    People keep ignoring this.
    
    I don't know folks, the picture is a little more complex and is being presented. 
    
    But currently?
    
    July immigrant border arrests lower than Trump’s last month in office. 
    
    All it took was one soon to be deemed  illegal executive order. What happens when the courts wipe it away?  Remember that the ACLU was successful in challenging the Trump administration's nearly identical executive order.  I have no doubt they will be successful once again.  Maybe we need to stop throwing spaghetti against the wall already. 
    
    https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/imm … sylum-rule
    
    https://www.npr.org/2024/06/12/nx-s1-50 … ive-action
    
    https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil. … rs-in-2021

    replyreport
    1. 96

       Readmikenowposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

       I think it's real simple.
       
       I don't care about their reason for being here illegally.
       
       If you come into the country illegally, you get deported.  Everything necessary to prevent people from crossing the border should be done.  Preventing people from illegally coming into the country should always be a priority.

       replyreport
       1. 70

          Ken Burgessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          That we do not really control the borders, is the problem.
          
          That our government(s) encourage this activity with taxpayer paid-for programs that give non-citizens up to $120,000 for a downpayment on a home, or that provides an individual with thousands of dollars per month... yet we don't put that money toward Social Security or ensuring those Americans that have been suffering generationally get the extra hand the Democrats have been promising them for years (reparations).
          
          I say governments because States like CA and OR and NY provide services for non-citizens that citizens would never be provided, regardless of their circumstance or need.
          
          How is it we have an Administration today that has funded and aided in the efforts of migrants to enter our country without proper vetting or means of support being available to them?
          
          Today we have an Administration that plays a shell game with America's economic wellbeing, giving hundreds of billions away each year to NGOs and Non-Profits that exist to only to do harm to America the Nation and to strip wealth from America the Nation so that it can go to Non-Americans.

          replyreport
          1. 59

             Willowarborposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

             "That we do not really control the borders, is the problem."
             
             Who has the ability to change immigration law in our country? It's a very simple answer.

             replyreport
             1. 96

                Readmikenowposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                The bigger question is who has the responsibility to enforce the immigrations laws in our country.
                
                This is a simple answer.

                replyreport
                1. 59

                   Willowarborposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                   Are you implying that immigration laws are being broken?

                   replyreport
                   1. 96

                      Readmikenowposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                      "Are you implying that immigration laws are being broken?"
                      
                      Are you serious?  Millions of people in the country illegally may be a bit of an indicator a few laws may have been broken.
                      
                      The question is Who is responsible for enforcing them?

                      replyreport
                      1. 59

                         Willowarborposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                         A lot of people make these claims without knowing immigration law. I am quite certain though, if laws were not being upheld, we would see lawsuits by various groups.  The only suits I currently see are those brought by groups challenging the legality of Biden's current executive order that is limiting asylum.   Where is the action by those that claim the Biden administration isn't upholding the law?   It's really nonsense, talking points aimed at those who don't understand the actual laws.
                         These vague claims laws being broken don't have much credibility when folks can never define which laws are being broken. It's not that difficult and we certainly have enough smart lawyers out there.  LOL but no one can ever point to specific law or policy?

                         replyreport
12. 75

    Kathleen Cochranposted 6 weeks ago

    You will see what you look for. If you look for the best in someone, you will usually find it. The problem comes when there is no good in them at all no matter how you try to find some.

    replyreport