27

The most active thread yesterday was the same thread about the election being close that was the most active thread on Wednesday as well. Since I discussed that thread in yesterday's blog post, I'll skip it and go on to the next. That thread was also related to the election. Titled, "Harris interview with MSNBC Sept 25 - 24minute video" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum, the original poster embedded an interview that Vice President Kamala Harris gave to Stephanie Ruhle of MSNBC. There are really two ways to evaluate Harris in circumstances like this. She can be judged in a vacuum, solely on her performance and the quality of her responses. Alternatively, she can be compared to her opponent in the election, former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump. Those responding in the thread do both. Posters are divided about her performance, some believing that she did a good job, was relatable, and seemed competent. Others found her answers lacking substance and had stylistic objections. Generally, these responses fell along partisan political lines. Compared to Trump, however, there is really no contest. While Harris may not have been 100% accurate in her responses, she was generally truthful. Trump, on the other hand, routinely spews a fountain of lies that overwhelms both those questioning him and fact-checkers who simply don't have enough hours in the day to correct them all. This creates a structural disadvantage for Harris because coverage of her speaking will often concentrate on the one or two missteps and ignore the rest. Trump, on the other hand, will start talking about sharks and electric boats or Hannibal Lector and will be covered as if he delivered the Gettysburg Address. It is pretty clear to me that Harris and her campaign have chosen to stick to broad strokes and avoid delving into details. They are running a campaign based on themes and ideas. In other words, similar to Obama's campaigns. Harris is not pretending to be Hillary Clinton and enumerating the 15 steps of the four phases of her 40 page plan. This is a good thing. Even with the minimal details Harris provided in this interview, posters found fodder for criticism. More details would simply generate more criticism. This is a big picture election. Voters care about abortion rights, the economy, foreign policy, the environment, crime, and yes, immigration. Harris and Trump have vastly different ideas on all of these topics. Harris' job is to convince voters that her stances are in their interest and that she can be trusted as a leader. She will do that by making them believe in her, not by boring them to death with a mountain of data. Trump is certainly not going to provide details of his plans. Of course, those details are provided in Project 2025 from which Trump is doing his best to run away.