Not sure if you guys watched the interview Kamala had on Fox News. Why did she agree to that? Is she that delusional?
Is the leftist bubble that strong that she did not expect questions on immigration or economy?
There was a part where she said the experts agree that her economic plan will increase economy unlike Trump and she did not expect to be asked what she did for the past 3.5 years if she can save the economy.
She then became unstable and full TDS crazy.
I didn't watch her for the same reason I never watched much from the 2016 election.
I can't stand passive aggressive bitch voice. Particularly if I'm not physically present to bring them up short myself. I've done violence for much less good reason than that condescending, lecturing, bitchy schoolmarm voice that every single prominent leftist female seems to have.
That said from the bit of the transcript I read, it seems like Baier should have smoked a cigarette afterwards.
Baier did good but it was just basic stuff that every interviewer should have touched on. What he did great was to ask her if she should apologize for the girls raped and murdered by illegals and she did not. Made her look evil to the core.
There's an ex-Democrat gay guy named Joshua (lol, I know) who went full MAGA who does this podcast called Disaffected - i.e. Disaffected liberals.
In it, he recently did a podcast called "Yes, Mommy, What?"
In where he talked about how the Democrats ,both men and women have turned into a party of helicopter parents. They'll always scold you and scold you for doing something wrong, a party of women and soyboys that expect you to say, "Yes, mommy. What is it?"
Kamala is a representative of that. This is a stark contrast to the current Republican party, which is more like that father that is willing to discipline you for fucking up, but will leave you alone to your own desires to make your own mistakes.
The Democrats want their government to be their surrogate mother.
He was raised by a mentally ill mother who had Cluster B borderline/narcissist behavior, and he noticed the Democrat party and its little extremist spinoffs have attracted NOTHING but narcissistic cluster B personality types. He got sick of it and left the party.
She went on the 'call her daddy podcast' recently and despite how shit she is at talking, is trying to be on the Joe Rogan podcast simply because of the views and Trump may be going on it soon.
Her media advisers are the dumbest boomers ever while Trump's recent Town Hall on Fox with an all FEMALE audience was just a brilliant move especially since he really hit the whole trannies in women's sports issue.
I don't think she is just shit at talking. She's got to be mentally retarded.
She is, genuinely, an idiot. Joe Biden is senile, but he was still smarter than her. Her staff are retarded too.
That begs the question why the hell she was put into that position. Hillary can at least be explained by her being a devious, scheming cunt that most likely had leverage. But Kamala? There is no way in hell that she is anything but a mindless puppet and she is even more unlikable than Hillary.
Literal diversity hire who was sidelined in the administration.
Susan Rice was the real brains behind Biden and she fucked off as soon as it became clear he wasn't going to make it to another term.
Yeah, but why did they put her up as the presidential candidate? Feels like they want Trump to win.
Because above all else the democratic party elites are control freaks who wanted to deal with two situations:
A chaotic convention that illustrates the neolib-vs-progressive schism in the party, and the risk that an ACTUAL progressive might come out on top instead of a manufactured faux-gressive.
The relative ease of transferring state level campaign operations (and more importantly, money) from Biden-Harris to Harris-Walz.
She was the continuity-of-campaign choice. They would like to win, and Harris gave them a chance of winning, but losing control is more terrifying to the party leadership than losing the election.
I think they had to otherwise they had to return a ton of campaign funds.
Every 4-8 years they let the opposition party win so the normiecons go back to sleep.
She isn't a completely mindless puppet. She's just a bit of an idiot.
She and Willie Brown out-maneuvered Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Obama, and Clinton. The stolen Trump policies and pandering are all signature moves of Willie Brown. Biden was looking worse and worse before the debate, and Nancy was actually looking to push him out and get someone else in. Nancy wanted Shapiro, Obama's surrogate we're not clear about, and Clinton didn't mind Harris. Harris helped Pelosi push Biden out, then immediately betrayed Nancy and took over the Biden-Harris political organization to seize the funds and declare victory. Harris stole the candidacy while Obama was getting his shoes on, and Nancy thought they could have a competitive primary. But Harris fucked all of them over.
Remember, this woman is an evil prosecutor that likes to keep innocent people in prison, and sell her allied companies prison labor for kick-backs. She's a bit of an idiot, but with Willie Brown at her side, she's a bit of a ruthless actor. It's Willie who wants the white house. Biden, Nancy, and Pelosi were all left out to dry.
Problem is, this effort is too big of a challenge for any of them, let alone Willie Brown's cocksleve.
I think it's more straightforward than you do. As they were pushing Biden out, they realized that the sizable campaignb warchest would evaporate unless they kept Kamala as the option (and even then they weren't 100% sure).
However, I also think that much of the palace intrigues and infighting we're seeing also relates to how that money is spent and flows out of Kamala's grasp. Joe and Jill, in addition to being pissed about having that warchest taken from them, want to see Joe's legacy as being "the only person to ever beat Trump." Hence the sabotage there. I also think the Clintons have been snubbed in this, with respect to the money, so there may be some sabotage going on there too.
I don't understand the actual logistics behind the Biden/Harris campaign donations having to be returned.
I've never heard of anyone receiving a refund on a political donation. AFAIK, you don't get refunded even if the candidate steps down.
Is the idea that some of the campaign donations are still only pledges that haven't been collected?
Does it have something to do with suped PACs that may only release money on a discretionary basis?
I understand the legal argument that funds donated to Biden/Harris should only be donated to their campaign. But I'm sure the DNC could figure out some creative accounting to shuffle money around rather than return it.
Or is it a case of dead money where the money doesn't get returned but can only be used to pay off Biden/ Harris debts rather than be used by another frontrunner on new spending?
The long and short of it is that Kamala was part of the same campaign committee as Joe, with respect to the donations that had been made. There was around $250 million from donations at the time. Because they shared the same committee, it was highly likely that there would be no complications in transferring funds to her as the new Presidential candidate.
For anyone else to become the new candidate, however, Biden would have to offer donors the option for refunds (which the Dems absolutely did not want since they knew it would leak away massive amounts of that warchest). The remainder could still end up going to the DNC, but only a fractional portion of that could then be sent back to a new candidate. That would still have been relatively sizable, like 30 or 40 million, but not near the quarter-billion Biden had built up.
This also doesn't touch on PACs which had hundreds of millions generated for Biden, but that may not have been therefore usable for a new non-Harris candidate. I think some of these still faced complications even with Harris.
Regardless, the huge held-breath pause that the Democrats seemed to take as it became clear Biden was being forced out was because of the internal maneuverings regarding the campaign funds and how they could keep their hands on it all.
Biden said his VP was going to be a "woman of color" before they even started vetting candidates. She was the best they could come up with as a diversity hire.
Nobody that would be a quality democrat candidate (Newsom and Beshear come to mind) would want to hitch themselves to this administration vs Trump.
Half 'jeet, half dindu. So.... yeah.
If anything, public speaking is probably her best skill outside of the bedroom.
I mean, what do you expect when you hire a prostitute?
May also be lazy. She's admitted that she smokes weed.
I think it's for one simple reason, and it's the same reason as always. She's went on Fox, and is supposedly going on Rogan, for the same reason:
Look at the day after the big bad Fox interview. Here is what those disinterested masses saw/heard about it (if they saw anything about it at all):
Yeah...
So, anyhow, that's why she did it. That same sort of spin is all over Reddit. It's all over YouTube. It's being push notificationed to people's phones via the news apps on Android and iPhone. It's down in the right hand corner of people's Window's desktop under "Breaking News". Teens had it fed to them under "Breaking News" if they used the YouTube App on the PlayStation/Xbox.
The bottom line is that people on the left aren't going to change their vote no matter what. People on the right (the sorts that would watch Fox) aren't going to change their vote no matter what. Everyone else - the disinterested masses - gets the interview(s) filtered down to them via the media, and via the tech companies. The Harris camp likely knows it's super close, and they also know they will get to decide how those companies spin these interviews, so there is nothing to lose, and everything to gain (they only need to flip a little bit of those people in the middle to win).
As always - the left's indoctrination and propaganda system needs to be destroyed. It is the single thing that enables everything they do.
At this point, it looks like it’s malice. Hillary is still alive and mad her chance of first women president slipping away.
Rogan doesn't have what it takes to go for the kill.
Rogan isn't trying to kill his guests. Except that Adam retard who argued against weed.
Bret Baier is the most inoffensive guy they could have had interview her and she still fell apart exactly like any moderator-coddled leftist activist online starts throwing tantrums if they're gently challenged on anything.
It wasn't a softball interview, but they couldn't do that without pissing off their own audience.
Baier was basically telling her he'd throw a fast ball down the middle. That's how you "give up a pitch" and let the batter score a home run. She's just too stupid to to actually swing correctly. Baier gave her a girl boss moment with the over-talking, but she didn't take it. Follow-up questions destroyed her because Leftists are morons who rarely understand their own philosophy.
Baier, Murdoch, and all of Fox News want Trump to lose, and are working to do it, but they can't make it obvious as controlled opposition. Same way CBS can't just ride her dick the whole time. It's not a softball interview, it's a fastball interview. Only fastballs down the center were allowed to be thrown and she still the mighty Casey struck out.
The irony is that the polls were close - some even said she was ahead.
Then she started speaking to her nation.
Isn't it funny how the polls are always close. 48-48 every election. Ya right.
And somehow the Democrat "wins" every time. It's totes legit guys, seriously!
51-49 again. Guess we just have to vote 2% harder next time!
Mark Halperin made the point to Tucker that the public polls are as reliable as Baghdad Bob and that the private polls commissioned by candidates, which cost a lot of money, are the only real data to anyone in the race.
Nate Silver (who is apparently persona non grata with the leftists now??) wrote a piece saying the exact opposite. Or, more precisely, he said that the internal polling that candidates publicly release or leak is less reliable than public polling.
Internal polling is used as a campaign piece to drive a narrative.
Nate Silver is also a liar who looks like he should be asking strangers for spare change. He's just about the most pathetic looking mother fucker I've ever seen and I once met that old skeleton Harry Reid.
That's true in terms of appearance.
Is he a liar?
He's kind of another case of a former golden child of the left getting chased out of town for slightly disagreeing. https://archive.ph/iCAC7 (Vox, "What happened to Nate Silver")
Yes he is a liar. Nobody should be so fluent in statistics, that then fails to mark on how extraordinarily fraudlent 2020 was.
There can be no respect for liars.
The other guy who replied to you got to it first, but his answer is correct. The steal. Anyone who purports to understand statistics knows that Biden's vote curve is less likely than winning the lottery while being struck by lightning.
So maybe candidates commission junk polls and leak them to drum up support, but don't release the valuable real-time polls.
Sure, maybe. But since nobody outside of campaigns sees these internal results, we just have to take their word for it (or not)?
It's not so much they talk about the results as they change their behavior based on internal polling. Kamala just made a kamikaze run on Fox News with only a few weeks to go until the election.
Kamala "I have a glock and watch Formula1 -- both activities popular with my Jewish husband and non-binary queer model step-child" Harris is running scared. On that we agree!
Of course he's going to say that because he generates public polls that he wants people to put eyeballs on. Silver is a faggot.
Silver is not a pollster and he doesn't generate any polls.
"Why you should mostly ignore 'internal polls'" https://archive.ph/Q56il
If you've got a problem with anything in the article, go for it.
You're right, he actually generates analysis on public polls rather than any polls himself. He would be out of a job if no one thought they were valid, and further, he actually did do some polling of his own (via FiveThirtyEight) in the now distant past. It's perfectly reasonable to think and believe that campaigns will publicly release "internal polling" results that are fabrications to develop a public narrative, but this doesn't actually address the question of whether real internal polls are more or less valid than public ones.
Here's the thing -- we ALL know that public polls are almost entirely Left slanted and intentionally erroneous to some degree, not even speaking to their other inherent flaws. Which is to say, they're unreliable just on the face of them. While internal polls could suffer the same problem, hitting on Silver's claim of "principal-agent" and "true believer" bias, there is a much, much stronger incentive for candidates to operate on precise internal polls. After all, there is a tremendous amount of money and power involved, not merely ego stroking, and the people backing these candidates apply even more pressure for them to use good internal data to get the desired outcome -- won elections that solidify regulatory capture, corruption and all the other things being paid for by these external parties.
I agree with all of that.
2020 anyone? lol
this isn't her nation.
I think she should do more of these.
People really have to understand just how incredibly dumb she is. And the more she does this, the easier it will be for everyone to see.
She's clearly a genuine idiot who stumbled onto power, realized she liked it, and is now desperate to cling to it. Despite not having a single idea how to run anything, let alone a country.
Because she stood to gain more than she might lose.
It's Fox, so the audience is pretty much exclusively Republicans. Best case she can convince some to vote for her who wouldn't have before. On the other hand the odds of losing voters on Fox is minimal. Also, nobody on "her" side of the media is going to show her performance to Dem voters.
It's a safe bet.
Fortunately for us the audience is no longer "just Fox". Clips and full interviews are being played. You can see how hard the defense mode was activated after this interview to try to contain it.
I doubt it will make much difference but I like it when the left panics.
She wanted to win over the Neo-Con establishment, who are voting for her, but she's retarded and doesn't understand how to placate them. She's making a big push for "Republicans for Harris", and that's why she isn't disavowing Dick Cheney's endorsement.
No, but the Leftist bubble is strong enough that they think the answers she gave would be adequate enough.
Those experts are literally Goldman Sachs carrying water for one of their slave candidates.
Leftists are horrific at being able to handle follow-up questions. This is known.
It's just more political theater. Nobody likes better than to laugh at the retard on the other side.
Fox News viewers got their bowl of kibble to eat.
She looked evil. Trump can seem unprepared but he does not look evil, she was something else. Not sure if this can reach any undecided voters or even if there are any undecided voters.
It might persuade some TDS conservatives that maybe Trump isn't the most evil thing around.
I jest, that'll never happen.
my guess is that she actually believes she's smart, and that the word salad answers she gets are stunning and revolutionary wisdom.
it's one thing to be an idiot. it's another thing entirely to be an idiot but believe you're a genius.
I’m sure we all thought that America’s HR Lady came across as being unlikable and dumb in the interview, but I’m wondering what fence-sitting normies thought of all this, as clearly they’re not always in sync with the sentiment on here.
She needed to look tough, and agreeing to a "hostile" interview would look like she isn't afraid.
Or, at least that would have worked if she had any answers other than "Trump" and wasn't shaking on camera.
Meanwhile Trump and Vance are already well versed in "assault interviews" and know how to answer them calmly and forcefully.
Skill issue.
Almost all of Trumps interviews are hostile.
Kamala Harris "yes" bets can currently be bought on Polymark for ~38 cents. I'm debating making a bet as a kind of emotional hedge.
Every year before this one I would place a big bet against the Braves in the postseason series, if they win, I'm happy and bet again for the next series, if they lose (let's face it, it's the Braves) I just got myself a nice single barrel to sip on for the rest of the October games.
Might put some money Kamala at 38, do I need to get polygon or whatever the hell?
This isn't for people to watch or people who check primary sources. This is for people who get summaries written by fawning press that write without quotations and tell readers what Kamala's handlers wanted her to say, not what she did say.