Kamala Is Becoming a Real Drag for Democrats to Defend

Her vibes may work on Oprah, but that's not the campaign trail

Sep 27, 2024

Welcome to Thunderdome. For the past several cycles, Donald Trump has been an anchor around the necks of Republicans running for federal office across the country, forcing them to respond to his every statement of wavering obnoxiousness. “Will you denounce” was practically an autofill statement from journalists, with exasperated Republicans having to suddenly come up with spin on the fly about whatever their top candidate was on about at the moment.

This time around, that weight seems far heavier on Democrats. Witness the reaction to Kamala Harris’s endorsement, after previously calling for getting rid of the filibuster for climate issues and voting rights, to codify Roe v. Wade. The position — in typical fashion, adopted after she previously was emphatically on the opposite side — puts all Senate Democratic candidates in an awkward space of breaking with their presidential nominee or risk being exposed as an anti-democratic radical. What’s more, her off-the-cuff positioning to a public radio interviewer served to deny her an endorsement from Joe Manchin and led to a denunciation from Kyrsten Sinema for an “absolutely terrible, short-sighted idea.” The idea advocated for by biased media members that Harris has any appeal outside of the partisan Democratic coalition continues to prove itself as absolute fantasy.

The problem for incumbent Democrats and those running for open seats across the country is that unlike Harris, they have to be exposed to the media, doing one interview after another where they have to defend the agenda of a candidate incapable of defending it herself, even to a thoroughly sympathetic interviewer and audience. Even the New York Times couldn’t help but denounce her failure to answer basic questions from fangirl Stephanie Ruhle:

Ms. Ruhle’s first question was about how Ms. Harris might respond to people who hear her proposals and say, “These policies aren’t for me.” The MSNBC host’s second was about why voters tend to tell pollsters that Mr. Trump is better equipped to handle the economy.
Ms. Harris responded to the fairly basic and predictable questions with roundabout responses that did not provide a substantive answer.
Instead of offering any explanation for why Mr. Trump polls better on the economy — a matter that has vexed Democrats as President Biden has overseen a steadily improving economy — Ms. Harris instead blasted Mr. Trump’s record. She blamed him for a loss of manufacturing and autoworker jobs and said his tariff proposals would serve as an added sales tax on American consumers.
She said nothing about why voters think Mr. Trump and Republicans would be better on the economy. But she did say her policies are for everyone.
“If you are hardworking, if you have the dreams and the ambitions and the aspirations of what I believe you do, you’re in my plan,” Ms. Harris said.
She avoided a looming scenario: what if Democrats lose the Senate? Ms. Harris has been eagerly promoting the big-ticket items on her agenda. A middle-class tax cut, tax increases for the rich and for big corporations. More money for child care and health care.
Ms. Ruhle brought up the elephant in the room: how could any of this happen without Democratic control of the Senate?
This is a key question that hangs over the Harris campaign as Democrats increasingly fear Senator Jon Tester of Montana is in a perilous political situation. If he loses his re-election bid, Democrats would need to flip at least one Republican-held Senate seat to retain control of the chamber — an unlikely prospect given this year’s daunting map for the party.
Ms. Harris skated past Ms. Ruhle’s question about where Democrats would find the money for such proposals without addressing her party’s Senate prospects.
“But we’re going to have to raise corporate taxes,” she said. “We’re going to have to make sure that the biggest corporations and billionaires pay their fair share. That’s just it. It’s about paying their fair share. I am not mad at anyone for achieving success, but everyone should pay their fair share.”
That is an argument she may find herself making to very skeptical Senate Republicans next year if she wins the White House.

Harris’s incompatibility with any questioning whatsoever, particularly any that includes inquiries with depth, is going to be a continual problem for Democrats across the country this cycle, and it’s one reason why Republicans are so confident that even should Trump lose, they’ll be in a position of power in the House and Senate that could capably fend off Kamala’s radicalism.

My regular weekly appearance on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show, which touches on the Stephanie Ruhle interview, is here:

1×

0:00

-24:38

Zelensky to Meet With Trump After Criticism

This conversation will definitely come up in next week’s VP debate.

Donald Trump has revealed a personal plea Volodymyr Zelensky sent him for a meeting.
The Republican nominee took the unusual step of posting a message from Mr Zelensky to his Truth Social account, with the apparent intention of making the Ukrainian leader look keen to meet him.
In the message, Mr Zelensky said he always speaks “with great respect” about Trump, and argues the two men “have to strive to understand each other and remain in close contact”.
He requested a meeting with Trump, to be held on Friday in New York, and implied it had been scheduled for Friday. Speaking to reporters on Thursday evening, Trump confirmed he would meet Mr Zelensky the following day…
Mr Zelensky has generally been complimentary about Trump in public, but said in a recent New Yorker interview that his “feeling is that Trump doesn’t really know how to stop the war even if he might think he knows how”.
He has vociferously opposed negotiations with Russia that would result in a loss of Ukrainian territory in exchange for peace, and described JD Vance, Trump’s running mate, as “too radical”.

More on the meeting today, and analysis from Owen Matthews on what victory for Ukraine looks like, and from Nikolas Gvosdev on the final countdown toward an election that could dramatically shift U.S. policy toward the war.

Pod Save Bro Sucks at Survivor

Amber Duke.

I am a longtime Survivor fan, which regular readers of this newsletter will know thanks to my investigation of Survivor villain Russell Hantz’s alleged fantasy football scam. Imagine my delight, then, when I found out that politics and Survivor were about to have an epic crossover event.
Pod Save America podcaster and Crooked Media co-founder Jon Lovett, who served as a speechwriter for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, was cast in season forty-seven of Survivor. He was featured heavily in season promos, and host Jeff Probst described him as one of Survivor’s great “storytellers.” It certainly gave the impression that he was going to last awhile on the season.
It’s all over the internet at this point that, alas, Lovett did not make it past the first episode. But if you want to avoid further spoilers, stop reading here.
Anyway, the story of Lovett’s downfall on the show is pretty incredible. He basically embodies every stereotype about liberal dudes in one ninety-minute episode.
He starts out by making a self-deprecating joke about his lack of friends. (As an aside, he also reveals to everyone that he is a popular podcaster and speechwriter, which is a big no-no because a huge part of Survivor is being able to talk people into keeping you around and, at the end of the show, awarding you the million dollars. Being seen as a good communicator instantly makes you a big threat.)
Despite his way with words, it quickly becomes clear that Lovett is having a hard time getting socially close with the rest of his tribe. His one moment of bonding comes with tribemate Andy, who blurts out to the openly gay Lovett, “I’m bisexual.” OK, cool.
Lovett’s tribe ends up losing the first immunity challenge, and Andy has a meltdown in front of all of the players, declaring that no one on his tribe likes him, and he will likely be the first person voted out of the game. He exclaims that he even thought about “throwing Jon under the bus” to save his own skin. Yikes.
Andy’s mental instability should make him the obvious choice for the tribe to vote out unanimously. But Lovett decides to try to save Andy, despite the clear disunity he brings to the tribe and the fact that he openly expressed his willingness to be disloyal! Prioritizing the standing of the minority at the expense of the larger group: classic Democratic Party move.
So Lovett decides to offer up another tribemate, Anika, for people to vote out. I’m unsure why Lovett thinks this plan will work since he already acknowledged that he hasn’t built any real relationships with the other tribemates. You need trust with the other players to get them to agree to a blindside.
Naturally, the other tribemates start talking about Lovett’s aggressive gameplay and decide he might be a bigger threat to the tribe than Crazy Andy. They also all point out that Lovett is physically weak and can’t help much around camp or in challenges. They decide that, this early in the game, it’s better to have a slightly insane person who is physically strong (Andy) than a physically weak schemer (Lovett). Lovett is voted out near-unanimously by the tribe. Brutal!