To answer the first question, it was the Trump rally invitation, where Harris told voters how boring they’ve gotten. To answer the second question, I thought Harris did better by far, but she should’ve elaborated on policy, particularly climate and antitrust enforcement. She put a lot of thought into macho posturing on defense, but relat…
To answer the first question, it was the Trump rally invitation, where Harris told voters how boring they’ve gotten. To answer the second question, I thought Harris did better by far, but she should’ve elaborated on policy, particularly climate and antitrust enforcement. She put a lot of thought into macho posturing on defense, but relative to those, too little on things like federal jobs programs, the IRA, and unions
I think more detail would be a strategical error. Look what happened to Hilary Clinton's detailed policy roll-out. And nobody gave a better policy description than Elizabeth Warren. Oh well. This era of corporate media in alliance with the money that comes with Republican oligarchs will not see a balanced reportage of policy details. Instead, they will cherry pick and misrepresent and simply not report the details. As well, some policies could put her at odds with her current boss. But worse, overly detailed policy would put her in a defensive position and then THEY (Republicans) would write the narrative (falsehoods, meaningless attacks, and empty counter solutions). She's given us an outline. Let's go with that.
I suppose rolling out a platform is like a balancing act--I tend towards the side of the young progressive base of the party myself who wants more details and think democracy would be helped by that, but you are right that an unfriendly media will help Republicans misrepresent the platform.
I’d say, however, that there are some more people who would be convinced if Harris added details--if she said she’d keep Lina Khan and Jon Kanter in their antitrust enforcement seats, and take a more anti-corporate activist stance in general, she’d win over a wide swath of disaffected voters. If she announced a federal homebuilding jobs program, she’d take some young male and YIMBY votes from Trump. If she said how she’d expand Social Security and Medicare, she’d take the fiscally Keynesian, socially conservative Obama-Trump-Biden voters, and so on
Thanks for your fine, balanced reply. And your suggestions make complete sense to me. I do admit that my deep fear of another trump white house gives me reason to let slide some serious issues. I am hoping Lina Khan et al are kept on. Their works is so important. And there's Gaza... I want her to stop or at least slow down Netanyahu. So I guess I'm compromising my own beliefs. That said, I still hold with electing her then holding her feet to the fire.
To answer the first question, it was the Trump rally invitation, where Harris told voters how boring they’ve gotten. To answer the second question, I thought Harris did better by far, but she should’ve elaborated on policy, particularly climate and antitrust enforcement. She put a lot of thought into macho posturing on defense, but relative to those, too little on things like federal jobs programs, the IRA, and unions
Check out Harris's website where she articulates her policies.
I did, and I noticed they’re fairly light, compared to her 2019 website https://web.archive.org/web/20200711041132/https://kamalaharris.org/agenda/
It might just be me, or just my generation (see https://www.theupandup.us/p/genz-craving-policy-presidential-debate-2024), but at this point, I’ve cut her enough slack on policy
I think more detail would be a strategical error. Look what happened to Hilary Clinton's detailed policy roll-out. And nobody gave a better policy description than Elizabeth Warren. Oh well. This era of corporate media in alliance with the money that comes with Republican oligarchs will not see a balanced reportage of policy details. Instead, they will cherry pick and misrepresent and simply not report the details. As well, some policies could put her at odds with her current boss. But worse, overly detailed policy would put her in a defensive position and then THEY (Republicans) would write the narrative (falsehoods, meaningless attacks, and empty counter solutions). She's given us an outline. Let's go with that.
I suppose rolling out a platform is like a balancing act--I tend towards the side of the young progressive base of the party myself who wants more details and think democracy would be helped by that, but you are right that an unfriendly media will help Republicans misrepresent the platform.
I’d say, however, that there are some more people who would be convinced if Harris added details--if she said she’d keep Lina Khan and Jon Kanter in their antitrust enforcement seats, and take a more anti-corporate activist stance in general, she’d win over a wide swath of disaffected voters. If she announced a federal homebuilding jobs program, she’d take some young male and YIMBY votes from Trump. If she said how she’d expand Social Security and Medicare, she’d take the fiscally Keynesian, socially conservative Obama-Trump-Biden voters, and so on
Thanks for your fine, balanced reply. And your suggestions make complete sense to me. I do admit that my deep fear of another trump white house gives me reason to let slide some serious issues. I am hoping Lina Khan et al are kept on. Their works is so important. And there's Gaza... I want her to stop or at least slow down Netanyahu. So I guess I'm compromising my own beliefs. That said, I still hold with electing her then holding her feet to the fire.