Dem
50
GOP
50
Yesterday, CBS aired the now-traditional (since 1968) pre-election interview with the major-party presidential nominees (well, one of them, since Donald Trump bailed out). If you would like to see the segment, here it is:
Truth be told, we didn't find it to be worth 15 minutes of our time. Bill Whitaker, who drew the assignment, asked questions that were very obvious, and that were sometimes very leading. For example, he grilled Harris on her economic plan, observing that it would add $3 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years, and demanding to know how she would pay for that. What that question overlooks is that EVERY president of the last century has added to the deficit, almost invariably at a rate greater than Harris' plan would. While we don't have a problem with asking about the math behind the plan, the lack of context made it seem that her plan extends the deficit at an unusually high rate, which just isn't correct. Meanwhile, as a reward for his "gotcha" question, Whitaker just got well-worn talking points in return.
This same dynamic was on display with the other issues that were addressed—Israel, Ukraine, abortion, the border, etc. To the extent that anything piqued our interest, it was the moment when Whitaker tried to get Harris to comment on whether or not Benjamin Netanyahu is a close ally of the United States; she would only say that Israel is a close ally of the United States. We'll also add that we know this is 60 Minutes' "style," but we dislike it that they chop up the interview as they see fit, and often impose voiceovers on the footage halfway through a person's answers.
For most of the last 5 minutes of the 20-minute segment, Whitaker chatted with Tim Walz. And the main theme there was: Is Walz a liar? Again, we saw little of use here. The various examples that Whitaker raised—the timing of the 1989 visit to China, the military rank, etc.—have already been addressed by Walz, and have been dissected by the media. Either you believe Walz' explanations, or you don't. Further, even if you think Walz has a lying problem, his (alleged) whoppers have come at the rate of, what, one a week? The complete list of Walz lies/alleged lies is equaled by Donald Trump or J.D. Vance by lunchtime on most days. The implied equivalence between Walz, on one hand, and Trump/Vance, on the other, smacks of bothsidesism. If a voter is really and truly concerned about honesty, there is one ticket that has the clear edge here.
Incidentally, CBS also revealed a bit more information about Trump's withdrawal from his scheduled appearance. Initially, he demanded that CBS agree not to fact check him during the interview. Later, he added a second demand, saying he wanted an apology for how tough Lesley Stahl was with him in 2020. Both of these were nonstarters for CBS, and so, no interview. And to think that Trump claims that Harris is the one who can't handle the heat.
And on that point, while the Harris interview was useless, it did make very clear, once again, that she's capable of handling these things quite well. Yes, she dodged questions, but that kind of jiu-jitsu is supposed to be part of a politician's toolkit. Truth be told, we think it would look worse if she couldn't dance around a leading question, or a question with no good answer. Meanwhile, she was personable, and in command, and knew the material. The point is, this is not a Reagan 1988 or Biden 2024 situation; Harris does not NEED to dodge interviews.
That brings us to what we really want to talk about, which is Harris' media strategy. We had an item yesterday covering all the carping from Democrats that Harris isn't doing enough press. For example, Obama-era operative David Axelrod has felt free to share his many criticisms of her approach. We must admit, whenever Axelrod opens his mouth, we are reminded of the line from the movie The American President: "It occurs to me that in 25 years I've never seen your name on a ballot."
In any case, we have a couple of thoughts about Harris' approach. The first is that we actually see some merit in the course that Harris is pursuing. That is to say, if you do a bunch of media in August or September, you're probably not going to accomplish much, since the low-information/persuadable voters probably aren't paying attention yet. Meanwhile, you run the risk of overexposing yourself or, more significantly, saying something damaging that lingers. Think "childless cat ladies," for example. It may very well be best to save your bullets for the home stretch.
On top of that, when people like Axelrod say that Harris isn't doing enough media, they really mean she isn't doing enough traditional media. The seasoned vets tend to turn their noses up at anything that isn't one of the big three broadcast networks, the big three cable news networks, the Sunday morning shows, The New York Times, The Washington Post or The Wall Street Journal.
The truth is, Harris actually has done a fair bit of traditional media. She was on CBS yesterday, and has also had hits on two of the big three cable news networks (all but Fox), and has already sat down with both the Times and the Post.
Meanwhile, the candidate is giving a fair bit of time to podcasts and other "off the wall" options. She did the basketball podcast All the Smoke last week. As we noted in yesterday's item, she did the Call Her Daddy podcast over the weekend. For those who are unfamiliar, that is the second most downloaded podcast in America. Host Alex Cooper, who is basically a female version of Howard Stern, has 5 million listeners, nearly all of them women. Speaking of Stern, who has 10 million listeners, three-quarters of them between 25 and 54 years of age, Harris will be sitting down with him this morning. She's also got a town hall with Univision later this week, along with appearances on The View and Late Night with Stephen Colbert.
It seems pretty obvious to us what's going on here. The people who follow the traditional media? They are largely high-information voters, and most of them have presumably made up their minds as to how they are voting. So, Harris is going to where the low-information voters are. She connects with 5 million of them here, 10 million of them there, then adds another 3 million (Colbert), and another 2.5 million (The View). The David Axelrods of the world might not like it, but it sure looks pretty shrewd to us. (Z)