I agree that she shouldn’t spend the rest of the campaign doing this (and it’s absolutely true that our wealthy media stars are actively working to elect Trump and nothing will satisfy them). But I think it was worthwhile to do just so from here on in she and any of her surrogates can just say “Did you read the plan? Read the plan” and then get back to fighting.
Now, now, she had to set the— I mean, shut the corporate media up. So she gave them a few minutes in otherwise boring September, taking away their whines about her ignoring them/not detailing policy.
October is gloves off month. Talk about getting a head start. They came out swinging so hard (with the plan to fly the banner) that Cheeto just agreed to a second debate.
Sheesh. Yes. She had to do it. And not for swing voters. Not even for big media. Yes, the media has been whining about not enough policy details, not enough interviews, not enough, not enough, etc etc. But as a committed voter, I personally was interested to hear her actually declare her plan details rather than having to track them down in some platform document online. (Which as a wonk myself I will also do.) In spite of knowing and perfectly executing what you noted is essential for the campaign, *she chose* to demonstrate that yes, she can also talk wonkishly and sensibly to people who want to hear that. The forum/context for the speech was appropriate.
So IMHO I doubt she's going to significantly change her stump speeches, and her recent interview performance has already demonstrated she can stick close to its big ideas in the face of *questioning* from media reps.
So here’s what kinda disappoints me about your post, though I doubt it’s intentional. While Democrats have been chopping holes in their boats being reflexively hypercritical about their own candidates for years, cultural misogyny also requires that NOTHING a female candidate does will ever ever be enough or appropriate, etc etc. So while I expected complaints about *TMI* to follow the complaints we’ve heard about *not enough information*. I am surprised to see that colorable reflexivity from you. *sigh*
But, then there was all the wonks, like you, who complained all she evoked was “feelings”. So; what does she do to please “you”? You, at your keyboard, not out there getting hoarse at rally after rally, after rally? What does she do to please “you”? Walk out on her hands, cry for a bit to evoke “feelings” then have a paragraph about policy? Be explicit to her campaign workers, pretend for one minute you had their job and was advising her (knowing your advice could lose her the campaign). What exactly would be your advice. We wait.
Ignore the NY Times and speak to the feelings of voters. Don't chase the mythical swing voter, motivate your base. Just like she was doing at the start of her campaign.
It is apparently needed to do both. The US voter truly needs to be wooed in the 19th century meaning of that word, never mind the 20th century. Using that vocabulary, US voters want to be cosseted, snuggled, wooed, otherwise they are allowed to be bigoted, violent, and xenophobic, what we are seeing south of our border and what our “Conservatives” are slavering over up here for the otherwise option (though they’ll deny it, despite their actions to the contrary).
I agree with your assessment on Democratic wonkiness. (And so you know, I have been a fan of your writing ever since you first started blogging.) I just don’t believe wonk is going to be a problem with Harris.So far she seems to have pretty good timing strategically and she chooses her points and the words to make them with very carefully. Too much wonk in oral argument is deadly in the courtroom and on appeal—and she had years of experience as a prosecutor/attorney general finding a persuasive balance in her cases.
I get that you are waving a caution flag not go to deep in the wonk weeds because of how it can take a candidate’s momentum sideways; I also get that a lot of the job in commentary is *critique*. And…the times being so freaking perilous, I get that the more liberal commentariat will keep offering her the very best advice they can think of 24-7. But on a global level this consistent *crank*—from all corners—starts to appear counterproductive and unhealthy, especially since a lot of it (present company excepted) is intended deliberately to undermine her.
Just saying. I admire and am grateful for all you do!
I get your point, but feel she had planned to do both speeches regardless of the bad faith arguments from the media and Republicans. She has plans and wants to share them, for the people who want to know.
Even someone like me, an enthusiastic supporter wants to know what she has in mind. Both for my own edification and so I can share it with others who might have questions.
And these speeches become clips in ads she can run on a loop. It’s not just placating. It’s useful.
I think the media want wonkery because they want Harris to be less popular, which feeds their advertising sales and locks people in to distracting drama habits over election closeness.
Being "unpresidential" in ways that only old white cis men care about, like calling out opposition incompetence, incoherence, dishonesty, and cruelty would keep media fed and stir up support.
Does that make it right to downplay and downvote the one person just because you are “half of the world” who are “decent people”? Instead spread it wide and spread it loud., doncha think?
<<The other, and even less convincing response to my hectoring is that getting wonky stops the media from complaining that she isn’t giving out enough details. My response is, no it doesn’t.>>
Dead on. The news media, who tend to take their cues from The New York Times, are playing a very specific and very malicious game, and the only way for Harris to win it is not to play. That means playing to her campaigning strengths and referring the policy wonks to her website.
Democratic candidates often lean into wonkiness in a way that is not helpful at all. A well written and well presented, succinct policy speech is one thing.
But getting too wonky in an interview (or a debate or roundtable) can be counterproductive. A candidate’s statements can be taken out of context and/or misconstrued, often purposely.
Remember when Hillary said the thing about coal miners losing their jobs? The context made it clear that she was not talking about firing a bunch of coal miners. But the out of context quote was just too juicy for the media not to run with.
Democrats actually care about governing. And that’s a good thing. But governing well requires a lot of wonkiness. Campaigning well does not.
I’m torn. Minutiae matters when you’re running for president, especially against an opponent who offers nothing but fear. But you can’t get too far in the weeds.
I fully agree with you. Harris needs to retake the news cycle, get people excited. Almost everyone knows who they'll vote for if they vote. If. The objective is to get people to the polls; to want to vote.
Remember a DEMENTED Joe Biden had refused to quit because he knew that the CIA/DOD will AGAIN steal the election and all they require is someone willing to prosecute the brain dead Ukraine Proxy War.
QueMala Chameleon is also willing to do the warmonger - neocrazy - war profiteer bidding if she is allowed to usher in Marxism.
Illegals will continue to flood our communities , the green new scam will be enacted and we will soon be another socialist shithole. Communists love misery .
How much do you want to bet that once you are starving to death , walking to all your destinations and sharing your doublewide with 20 illegals you will be begging President Trump for mercy. And it will be too late,
So, what do you mean by wonking? A definition of wonking might be helpful in a criticism that you have invited us to ponder and/or agree with. Otherwise, it sounds a little too close to another poorly defined word that is a rallying cry for the people who purposefully misunderstand things and refuse to acknowledge that knowable things (reality) can be (should be) agreed upon.
While I don't disagree with your overall point, if you're going to be wonky, a room full of wonks is the place to do it and the average person isn't sitting through the whole speech.
God knows corporate media is only playing a few clips.
So, you’re her campaign manager. What does she do to win? Go out and cry to evoke feelings? Be explicit, what does she do to win? We wait to hear your advice since you get to sit back at your keyboard, I don’t hear your voice getting hoarse.
I agree that she shouldn’t spend the rest of the campaign doing this (and it’s absolutely true that our wealthy media stars are actively working to elect Trump and nothing will satisfy them). But I think it was worthwhile to do just so from here on in she and any of her surrogates can just say “Did you read the plan? Read the plan” and then get back to fighting.
Now, now, she had to set the— I mean, shut the corporate media up. So she gave them a few minutes in otherwise boring September, taking away their whines about her ignoring them/not detailing policy.
October is gloves off month. Talk about getting a head start. They came out swinging so hard (with the plan to fly the banner) that Cheeto just agreed to a second debate.
IOW, have faith. She’s got this.
Did he agree to another debate? I haven’t seen that yet.
Sheesh. Yes. She had to do it. And not for swing voters. Not even for big media. Yes, the media has been whining about not enough policy details, not enough interviews, not enough, not enough, etc etc. But as a committed voter, I personally was interested to hear her actually declare her plan details rather than having to track them down in some platform document online. (Which as a wonk myself I will also do.) In spite of knowing and perfectly executing what you noted is essential for the campaign, *she chose* to demonstrate that yes, she can also talk wonkishly and sensibly to people who want to hear that. The forum/context for the speech was appropriate.
So IMHO I doubt she's going to significantly change her stump speeches, and her recent interview performance has already demonstrated she can stick close to its big ideas in the face of *questioning* from media reps.
So here’s what kinda disappoints me about your post, though I doubt it’s intentional. While Democrats have been chopping holes in their boats being reflexively hypercritical about their own candidates for years, cultural misogyny also requires that NOTHING a female candidate does will ever ever be enough or appropriate, etc etc. So while I expected complaints about *TMI* to follow the complaints we’ve heard about *not enough information*. I am surprised to see that colorable reflexivity from you. *sigh*
I've complained for years about Democrats of all genders being too wonky. It's a party problem.
But, then there was all the wonks, like you, who complained all she evoked was “feelings”. So; what does she do to please “you”? You, at your keyboard, not out there getting hoarse at rally after rally, after rally? What does she do to please “you”? Walk out on her hands, cry for a bit to evoke “feelings” then have a paragraph about policy? Be explicit to her campaign workers, pretend for one minute you had their job and was advising her (knowing your advice could lose her the campaign). What exactly would be your advice. We wait.
Elaine, you know better.
If she cries, she's too emotional to be president.
If she doesn't, she's too cold.
If she lays out detailed policies, she's Clinton.
If she doesn't, she's an airhead.
If she goddamn walks on water, she's a showoff.
All she can do is what she has been doing.
I get it, she’s not a man, never mind being BIPOC
The other factor is that in this media moment, I think she's not Trump.
And they are desperate to keep the horse race going, facts be damned.
Why does this guy pontificate and never reply?
I think some posters want to stay out of the comments.
Like columnists staying out of the comments section.
Did you read the article?
Ignore the NY Times and speak to the feelings of voters. Don't chase the mythical swing voter, motivate your base. Just like she was doing at the start of her campaign.
It is apparently needed to do both. The US voter truly needs to be wooed in the 19th century meaning of that word, never mind the 20th century. Using that vocabulary, US voters want to be cosseted, snuggled, wooed, otherwise they are allowed to be bigoted, violent, and xenophobic, what we are seeing south of our border and what our “Conservatives” are slavering over up here for the otherwise option (though they’ll deny it, despite their actions to the contrary).
I agree with your assessment on Democratic wonkiness. (And so you know, I have been a fan of your writing ever since you first started blogging.) I just don’t believe wonk is going to be a problem with Harris.So far she seems to have pretty good timing strategically and she chooses her points and the words to make them with very carefully. Too much wonk in oral argument is deadly in the courtroom and on appeal—and she had years of experience as a prosecutor/attorney general finding a persuasive balance in her cases.
I get that you are waving a caution flag not go to deep in the wonk weeds because of how it can take a candidate’s momentum sideways; I also get that a lot of the job in commentary is *critique*. And…the times being so freaking perilous, I get that the more liberal commentariat will keep offering her the very best advice they can think of 24-7. But on a global level this consistent *crank*—from all corners—starts to appear counterproductive and unhealthy, especially since a lot of it (present company excepted) is intended deliberately to undermine her.
Just saying. I admire and am grateful for all you do!
I get your point, but feel she had planned to do both speeches regardless of the bad faith arguments from the media and Republicans. She has plans and wants to share them, for the people who want to know.
Even someone like me, an enthusiastic supporter wants to know what she has in mind. Both for my own edification and so I can share it with others who might have questions.
And these speeches become clips in ads she can run on a loop. It’s not just placating. It’s useful.
Very true, thank you for pointing it out.
I think the media want wonkery because they want Harris to be less popular, which feeds their advertising sales and locks people in to distracting drama habits over election closeness.
Being "unpresidential" in ways that only old white cis men care about, like calling out opposition incompetence, incoherence, dishonesty, and cruelty would keep media fed and stir up support.
It is beyond my very large and creative imagination how anyone can be on the fence for the election cycle.
How can any decent human being vote for a guy who raped little girls for sport with Jeffrey Epstein ??
On top of his violence and sexual perversions what about all of his financial crimes ? He has 34 felony convictions and more to come!
Americans need to read smarter vote smarter think smarter act smarter and be smarter
Half the people in the world are not decent human beings. Any cursory reading of history confirms this
Does that make it right to downplay and downvote the one person just because you are “half of the world” who are “decent people”? Instead spread it wide and spread it loud., doncha think?
<<The other, and even less convincing response to my hectoring is that getting wonky stops the media from complaining that she isn’t giving out enough details. My response is, no it doesn’t.>>
Dead on. The news media, who tend to take their cues from The New York Times, are playing a very specific and very malicious game, and the only way for Harris to win it is not to play. That means playing to her campaigning strengths and referring the policy wonks to her website.
"Next question?"
I could listen to her say that all day long.
Right??
This! 100% this!!! Thank you!
Democratic candidates often lean into wonkiness in a way that is not helpful at all. A well written and well presented, succinct policy speech is one thing.
But getting too wonky in an interview (or a debate or roundtable) can be counterproductive. A candidate’s statements can be taken out of context and/or misconstrued, often purposely.
Remember when Hillary said the thing about coal miners losing their jobs? The context made it clear that she was not talking about firing a bunch of coal miners. But the out of context quote was just too juicy for the media not to run with.
Democrats actually care about governing. And that’s a good thing. But governing well requires a lot of wonkiness. Campaigning well does not.
I’m torn. Minutiae matters when you’re running for president, especially against an opponent who offers nothing but fear. But you can’t get too far in the weeds.
It doesn't. Abortion is basically the only policy position that's mattered since Trump started running for president. Vibes are everything.
100% agree - they love his tweeting
I fully agree with you. Harris needs to retake the news cycle, get people excited. Almost everyone knows who they'll vote for if they vote. If. The objective is to get people to the polls; to want to vote.
Respectfully disagree.
Remember a DEMENTED Joe Biden had refused to quit because he knew that the CIA/DOD will AGAIN steal the election and all they require is someone willing to prosecute the brain dead Ukraine Proxy War.
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/us/what-was-the-final-warning-issued-by-nancy-pelosi-that-convinced-joe-biden-to-quit-the-presidential-race/articleshow/111967147.cms?from=mdr
QueMala Chameleon is also willing to do the warmonger - neocrazy - war profiteer bidding if she is allowed to usher in Marxism.
Illegals will continue to flood our communities , the green new scam will be enacted and we will soon be another socialist shithole. Communists love misery .
.
😂
Down's syndromers and the clueless appear to be so happy and carefree.
😂😂😂😂😂
Have you checked in with your doctor recently?
It's pretty clear your meds need adjusting.
How much do you want to bet that once you are starving to death , walking to all your destinations and sharing your doublewide with 20 illegals you will be begging President Trump for mercy. And it will be too late,
Honey, do you have a carer nearby? Can you point your carer out to us?
My CAREER is to support and defend the US Constitution from treasonous seditious motherfuckers like the socialist Demon Rats
Piffle
So, what do you mean by wonking? A definition of wonking might be helpful in a criticism that you have invited us to ponder and/or agree with. Otherwise, it sounds a little too close to another poorly defined word that is a rallying cry for the people who purposefully misunderstand things and refuse to acknowledge that knowable things (reality) can be (should be) agreed upon.
spending an hour going over the details of your economic plan, as she did this week, is wonking
At the Economic club of Pittsburgh.
While I don't disagree with your overall point, if you're going to be wonky, a room full of wonks is the place to do it and the average person isn't sitting through the whole speech.
God knows corporate media is only playing a few clips.
I missed that - are you required to have ESP abilities to understand decipher her "policies"
You want the funny thing?
There is a program like that run by a state with a $35,000 down payment currently up and running.
And it's in Florida, started by DeSantis.
🤣
I've got a feeling that may be mentioned in a debate if another one happens.
So, you’re her campaign manager. What does she do to win? Go out and cry to evoke feelings? Be explicit, what does she do to win? We wait to hear your advice since you get to sit back at your keyboard, I don’t hear your voice getting hoarse.
I was afraid you might say something like that.
Here we are now. Entertain us. 🇺🇸🫠