Aug.30

electoral-vote.com

Dem 51

   

GOP 49

Harris, Walz Interview: Democratic Ticket Goes the Distance with Dana Bash

Kamala Harris and Tim Walz sat down for their much-discussed interview with CNN's Dana Bash last night. If you would like to watch it, you can do so with these links: Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3. Why did CNN break it up into 10-minute chunks, as opposed to just posting the whole thing as one clip? The charitable answer is that they wanted to make it easier for people to work with, in the event that they are data-limited (say, watching on a cell phone) or are trying to link to some specific moment. The less charitable answer is that posting it in multiple segments increases CNN's clickthrough numbers and their advertising haul. We don't know which it is, but it's possible that all of these considerations played a role.

We watched the whole thing, of course (it's only a shade over 30 minutes, if you wish to do the same). We didn't know if we'd have much to say but, as it turns out, we do. So, here we go with the 10 things that most stood out to us:

1. Going The Distance: As many readers will know, the phrase "going the distance" originated in the world of boxing, to refer to a match in which neither participant was knocked out. We think that is a pretty good metaphor for last night's interview, which was decidedly adversarial in nature, and did not produce any "knockout" blows, as far as we could see. That is to say, Bash certainly tried a few "gotchas" (keep reading for specifics) but Harris and Walz parried effectively, such that there are not going to be any "Can you believe what Harris/Walz said?" stories today, outside of right-wing media. And, in fact, maybe not there, either. We took a quick look at some of the platforms where you would expect to find nuttery, and the two (fairly related) claims being made are that the interview was scripted, or that it was edited to remove embarrassing portions. When folks are grabbing at vague, conspiratorial claims like these, isn't the implicit message: "We really couldn't find anything specific to carp about"?
   
   
2. Dear Mr. Fantasy: One of the questions that really stuck in our craws was the very first one: "What would you do on Day One in the White House?"
   
   Now, there are two ways to interpret this question. You could understand it as asking about your top priorities, should you get to sit in the big chair. And that is how Harris responded initially, giving a broad, politician answer about strengthening the middle class.
   
   That did not satisfy Bash, who intended the second interpretation of the question, namely "What will be the very first thing you do, the second after you sit down in that chair?" Harris did not particularly want to answer that version of the question, but she eventually said she'd push for the passage of, and would sign, the bipartisan border security bill, and that she'd extend the child tax credit.
   
   The reason we don't care for this question is that it essentially demands that the candidate participate in a fantasy of how democracy works. Yes, a president can issue executive orders on Day One, and some of those are meaningful. But in terms of legislation, it's a slog. And Bash knows that, which makes it distasteful to us when she pretends otherwise.
   
   That said, at least Harris has no intention to assume dictatorial powers on Day One. Or, if she does, she's smart enough to keep it to herself.
   
   
3. Gish Gallop: Readers will recall that the Gish Gallop is a debate technique where you throw out more stuff than your opponent can possibly respond to, meaning that some or all of your assertions thus go unchallenged, and so effectively are allowed to stand. Now, you might expect us to apply this notion to the two Democrats, but we're actually going to apply it to Bash. We wouldn't say she Gish Galloped, per se, but some of her questions were, in our view, Gish Gallop-adjacent.
   
   Let us give an example. One of Bash's first few questions was this: "But I wonder what you say to voters who do want to go back when it comes to the economy, specifically, because their groceries were less expensive, housing was more affordable, when Donald Trump was president." This framing strikes us as extremely problematic. We are not expert enough in macroeconomics to evaluate how accurate the statement actually is, in the context of inflation, wage growth, etc. We suspect that the real answer is "it's complicated."
   
   Here is what we do know. If Bash had said, "for the last three decades, food and housing prices have climbed steadily upward, relative to wages," that would be a fair point. But to present it the way Bash actually presented it strongly implies that Donald Trump's policies were somehow better in terms of kitchen-table concerns than Joe Biden's policies. We are certain that is not true, because Trump had no policies focused on kitchen-table concerns. If things really were better under him, then surely it's due mostly or entirely to the vagaries of macroeconomic trends, right?
   
   In any event, the Gish Gallop-y element is this: There is absolutely no way, in the context of a 30 or 60 second answer, that Harris can push back at the statements of "fact" offered by Bash and can also present and explain meaningful policy ideas in response. As it was, Harris largely focused on the positive parts of the Biden-Harris economic record, while noting that the pandemic skewed everything, and conceding there is still plenty of work to be done.
   
   
4. What the F**ck?: We know what you are thinking, but note the extra letter/asterisk in that sub-head. Another area that Bash wanted to cover was Harris' apparent change of heart on fracking. As readers will recall, Harris was against fracking (through 2019) before she was for it (2020 to present).
   
   We all know why Harris changed course. When you are trying to get elected in California, you have to stand for (some) different things than when you are trying to get elected nationwide. Is this sleazy? Maybe, but it's the nature of the game. And you could actually argue that it's not sleazy, if you want. Since a politician is supposed to represent their constituents, it's perfectly justifiable to take new positions on some issues when you assume a new political position. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) took a lot of flak when she changed from representing a rural district near Albany to being a senator representing all of New York State. She basically said her job was to represent all of her constituents and now she had different constituents. What mattered was their opinions, not her personal ones.
   
   Although we were critical of some of Bash's other questions (see above), we have no issue with the fracking questions. The reason we mention it is that, prior to last night's interview, there was at least some supposition in some quarters that Harris just can't handle the heat, which is why she was staying out of the kitchen. This is nonsense; she's been in politics for decades now, and has done plenty of tough interviews. And if there was any doubt, she demonstrated her politician-fu last night, and managed to come up with politician answers to questions she didn't want to answer, just like any other veteran politico can do. In the case of fracking, she did not address her change of position, and merely reiterated several times that she's been consistent on this issue since 2020.
   
   One other thing on this point. There did not appear to be any questions, even the tricky ones, that Harris was unprepared for. You would certainly think that being ready for the obvious curveballs would be de rigueur for anyone presuming to appear on a major-party presidential ticket. And yet, recent experience has shown that is not always the case.
   
   
5. Thought: Moving away from specific questions, one thing that was evident in the interview was that Harris really thinks about things before answering. This may have been particularly obvious to (Z), since Harris does the same thing he does while trying to formulate an answer, namely look upwards for a moment. Here's an example:
   
   
   
   Note, in the event you did not watch any of the footage, that Bash was sitting camera right. So, Harris is not looking at her at this moment (and to the extent Harris is looking in the direction of anyone, it's Tim Walz, who was sitting camera left).
   
   We pay pretty close attention to body language, and Donald Trump rarely shows any sign of careful thought. Either he hides it well, or else his answers are: (1) pre-programmed and/or (2) whatever damn thing happens to pop into his head.
   
   
6. Empathy: Another character trait that was on display, from both Harris and Walz, was empathy. To take one example, both of them laughed several times. And it was real laughter, with the Duchenne smile and all. Can you recall, off the top of your head, an occasion where Trump laughed, and it seemed genuine? There must be a few of those, but we cannot easily think of one.
   
   To take another example, Bash asked Harris about how she learned Joe Biden was dropping out of the presidential race. And Harris told the tale, in much greater detail than she's done previously, noting that she was sitting down to Sunday breakfast with her family when she got the call. In response to follow-up questions about how she responded to this news, Harris said: "Well, my first thought was not about me, to be honest with you. My first thought was about him."
   
   This stuck out to us because, of course, Donald Trump would never say such a thing. And if he somehow did, it would be wholly unbelievable. Now, we recognize (having written it above) that Harris is a veteran politician, and might just be saying whatever sounds good. However, our strong impression was that she was telling the truth. Readers can watch that moment for themselves, if they wish to reach their own conclusions.
   
   
7. Disengagement: It may not have been a "Gotcha!" question, but it was certainly gotcha-adjacent, we think, when Bash brought up Donald Trump's remarks about whether or not Harris is really Black. What the CNN anchor, and her network, were hoping for was to launch a juicy pi**ing contest. That is the kind of thing that makes headlines.
   
   Unfortunately for Bash and CNN, Harris did not take the bait. Her entire response: "Yeah. Same old tired playbook. Next question." We commend her for declining this opportunity to poison the discourse a little more (and also see the last item today).
   
   
8. Arm Candy: We're not entirely sure why Tim Walz was there, since there were only a couple of questions addressed to him. We will tell you the most important thing he said, in our view, despite the fact that we know that NOBODY is going to write anything about this. Walz was asked about his military service, and his answer included this: "Well, first of all, I'm incredibly proud, I've done 24 years wearing the uniform of this country. I'm equally proud of my service in a public school classroom."
   
   We understand why Americans work so hard to honor the service of veterans and, to a lesser extent, police officers and, to a lesser extent than that, firefighters. However, and we've noted this before, there are other professions where people have equally committed themselves to service and to the greater good, despite the work often being difficult, and these professions are celebrated much, much more rarely. Medicine (and, especially nurses and orderlies). Social work. Public defenders. And certainly elementary and high school teachers. It was nice to see Walz choose not to privilege one form of public service over another.
   
   
9. What Did We Learn?: It should come as no surprise that, even if you watch the whole interview, you're not going to know much of anything that you didn't already know before. This speaks to the observation we made earlier this week that maybe these interviews aren't so important after all (and keep reading).
   
   To the extent that we learned something useful, it's probably the "character" stuff we discuss above. Or, if you want something more specific, Harris committed to putting a Republican in her Cabinet. That is the first time she's said that, apparently. That said, it's not exactly the world's most earth-shaking news, for two reasons. First, it's fairly standard for Democratic presidents to find room for at least one Republican on their team. Second, Joe Biden said he was going to put a Republican in his Cabinet, and he didn't do it. In other words, it's just a vague promise, and even if she follows through (unlike Biden), it's not that radical a promise. As we have mentioned before, we think Liz Cheney for Interior might be a good choice. A somewhat less likely choice would be Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) for some post. That would flip a Senate seat since Maine governor Janet Mills is a Democrat. Collins will be 72 in December. She has been in politics her whole life (and her mother was mayor of their town and her father was a state senator). Ending her career as a cabinet officer might be a nice capstone. She has chaired the Senate Committee on Homeland Security, so that could be a good fit.
   
   
10. Stirring the Pot: Just in case you have any doubts that CNN was hoping to generate a little controversy, take a look at this:
    
    
    
    If you closely examine the time stamps, you will see that CNN first posted the "big news" clip, about the Republican in the Cabinet. Then they posted a clip of Trump complaining about the interview, followed by a clip of the (unsuccessful) attempt to get Harris to respond to his race-baiting. And THEN the network posted the actual interview. Interesting priorities.

Clearly, our assessment of the interview is pretty CNN-critical and pretty Bash-critical. Earlier this week, in the piece linked above, we expressed some skepticism about how useful these interviews really are, and how much they really serve the needs of democracy. We invited readers to share their views as to whether Harris was wrong in avoiding the interview chair for so long. We really expected that a majority, or at least a sizable minority, would disagree with us and tell us that OF COURSE she should be engaging with the fourth estate. To our surprise, the many folks who wrote in were entirely in agreement with us. Here are a half-dozen of those responses:

1. M.B. in Granby, MI: Harris is not wrong.
   
   The media's political coverage has been execrable.
   
   Granted, Trump is sui generis when it comes to politicians. He lies like a rug—something the media are loath to admit. He has no policy details—mass deportation is a policy—something the media is loath to question. Trump apparently accepted a $10 million donation from Egypt, which Bill Barr may have covered up. It has been largely ignored.
   
   The media has a de facto partisan bias, not because it's motivated by partisanship, but because they see Kamala Harris as normal and perfect for the nitpicky, horse-race coverage they are accustomed to.
   
   The other reason: the mainstream media, sadly, in my opinion, is increasingly irrelevant. It has done a poor job covering politics and now other media channels are superseding it. Harris barely needs them.
   
   
2. J.S. in West Hartford, CT: I have voted in all 13 presidential elections since 1972, the first year I was eligible to vote. NOT ONCE have I watched or read any formal interview of any candidate. Formal interviews are like formal painted portraits, with the journalists (and their editors) presenting their "artistic" view of the candidate through their questions and editing. Some people like studying these formal "portraits." I am not one of them.
   
   
3. J.H. in Seattle, WA: The wailing and gnashing of teeth has been particularly acute among reporters of the New York Times and Washington Post. Joe Biden, in particular, invited much needling from the Times by denying the "paper of record" the interviews it felt it deserved. Given how badly the legacy elite media has been acting in the past years, twisting every headline into a "this is why this is bad for Biden/Harris" subhead (not to mention their outright hostility to trans people, dishonest reporting on the economy, and ridiculous desire for a contested convention solely for the drama and clicks), Harris should steer clear. The fact that her campaign is booming without indulging their precious need for "access" just reinforces how unserious they've been making themselves. Harris should snub them and instead sit down with more honest publications like The Los Angeles Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, or even (Teen) Vogue.
   
   
4. P.M. in Beaverton, OR: In a word: No.
   
   Kamala Harris and Tim Walz have a traveling press corps everywhere they go. Those press representatives have considerable access. There is little to gain and something to lose by sitting for CNN's inevitable array of click-bait-feeding gotcha questions. Even the network choice makes little sense. CNN is not exactly tearing it up in terms of viewership, and they have been tilting ever rightward as their market share has slipped. If an interview with an at-a-desk national television news personality had to take place, choosing a network that still broadcasts over-the-air (like ABC) perhaps would have reached an audience Harris/Walz has so far missed.
   
   
5. M.A. in Knoxville, TN: Personally, I think the complaints about Kamala Harris and Tim Walz not having done an interview with the media are stupid. The complaints from Republicans can easily be ignored as their usual stupid political games and culture-war bulls**t.
   
   The complaints from the news media seem to be a case of the media thinking they're far more important than they actually are. In the past they were important, but that was back when everyone got their news mainly from newspapers and TV. Back then, there were only really three choices for TV news: ABC, CBS and NBC. Now most people get their news online from multiple sources and don't watch TV at all. (For example, while I technically have a basic cable TV package, I only have it to get a cheaper bill than Internet access was alone. I don't even have the cable box hooked up.)
   
   Due to the above, I just don't see Harris and Walz doing interviews with TV media as making any real difference in the election. The voters it might make a difference with don't follow political news much, if at all, so they're unlikely to watch the interview in the first place. Most everyone else has their minds made up already.
   
   
6. M.G. in Weymouth, MA: Harris is not obligated to give an interview. Her public appearances and DNC speech speak for themselves. CNN will do ANYTHING to capture a "gotcha" moment, if only for ratings, and has shown itself to be a craven media source.
   
   By the way, I also opposed Biden debating, and warned my friends that it would be a sh** show. Unfortunately, my prediction was an understatement.

Unless a message somehow got lost, there was not a single reader who disagreed with us. Again, big surprise. Oh well, the more you know.

Anyhow, it's T-minus-10 days and counting to the debate, and the next time we'll be writing a piece like this. (Z)