As much as I’d like to not advertise any single media source, CNN scored the sit down interview so it is what it is.
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/harris-walz-trump-election-08-29-24/index.html
It’s live right now, will be interesting to see what people think!
More:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/29/politics/kamala-harris-tim-walz-cnntv/index.html
Anyone who comes away from this interview thinking that Harris is running a progressive campaign has their head in the sand. Just in the first 20 minutes:
This interview could have just as easily been one for a republican candidate. The good news is that if your only concern is beating trump then this interview was fine, bordering on good. The bad news is if you care at all about the overton window shifting even further right, this looks like a leap to the right, not just a step. Harris is running on strengthening our border/military and prosecuting undocumented immigration criminally, soft-touch climate legislation, palestinian genocide denial (expected) and unconditional lethal aid to Israel. The only positive positions she’s come out with thus far are are child tax credits and reproductive rights, and maybe an under-formed plan to produce more houses (but no mention of action to prevent those homes being commercially owned as investments)
She’s affirmed a number of fascist concerns and positions while distancing or outright rejecting progressive/leftist interests. She’s given credence to the xenophobic notion that immigrants are a national security risk, that we need to increase military spending and presence abroad, and indicated that private industry is a priority over existential concerns over climate change/pollution (being unwilling to acknowledge the problems caused by fracking because it might damage PA industry indicates (to me) that she’s unwilling to take action that may threaten private interests). This is a return to Clinton-era “tough on crime” neo-liberalism. Not only do these positions actively make things worse, they also make it extremely difficult for anyone next cycle to run on reduced military spending, more aggressive climate action, international cooperation on human rights and climate, or a reduction of hostilities in foreign affairs. If you’re of the opinion that climate change is accelerating toward the worst-case scenario for the planet, then any indication that there are other interests (especially interests in protecting a specific industry) that are more important than averting climate catastrophe is beyond stupid. It is the same political calculation as deregulation and presents the same obstacle to meaningful climate policy.
Doubling-down on the most aggressive and xenophobic fears while the working class continues to decline is historically what tends to precede a slide into fascism. Even if she beats trump in November, all signs point to an even more active fascist movement for the next four years.
Now is absolutely not the time to be calm or complacent.
On immigration if you look at the polling, we just straight lost. The only part that Americans still have sympathy for is DACA. Other than that, support for walls, deportation, and not accepting asylum are all up.
Because of FPTP we don’t get to have presidential candidates lead the way. They follow the votes.
This is how moderates end up on the wrong side of fascism.
Yup. FPTP needs to die
That reaction does not inspire confidence.
It’s the driving force. If we get ranked choice in most states then we can start seeing some leadership on issues during campaign season instead of trying to get badly measured independent votes.
I don’t want to alarm you, but ‘getting ranked choice’ will also face resistance from the parties, and will also involve damaging the democrat’s electoral chances.
I’d argue the real problem is a lack of class consciousness and complacency from liberals, but I have a feeling you probably disagree.
No I agree that those are contributing problems. The question is how do we educate people on them. Which is why ranked choice is such a big deal. Most people pay the most attention during the campaign season. So we need to open it up. As far as difficulty, yeah it’s not great but some states are already instituting RCV.
Maybe you’re not one of the people on here constantly complaining about negative Democrat coverage, but the overwhelming response to anything that might damage the reputation of democrats at the expense of losing to republicans is met with constant whining.
Educating people why we need anything involves repeatedly raising the issue and presenting the evidence that’s most alarming, and making the case that we need to address it. When someone says “Democrats are materially supporting genocide”, liberals on .world get all up in arms, screaming that it’s ‘not the democrat’s fault’ and that blaming them for something they’re doing (but helpless to stop doing) is only going to allow someone worse do that thing.
It’s the same with FPTP. Legislatures in a swing state aren’t going to propose switching to FPTP because neither party can afford to loose any votes to third party candidates. They’ll capitulate just enough to say they’re addressing it, but stop short of sacrificing their advantage and then rake activists over the coals and sic the riot police on them for pushing too hard for it.
Reminds me of a quote from Frederick Douglass:
Liberals who use electoralism as an excuse to defer taking action will never be swayed into it, because they’ve already made the calculation that it isn’t worth sacrificing their privileged position. You have to make the cost of abdication so severe that they cannot excuse themselves from the responsibility.
Oh, there’s no question she’s not a progressive… but when the alternative is Trump, Reagan and Nixon look progressive.
Well it’s a good thing that Reagan and Nixon didn’t cause any lasting damage, then.
Hard, hard disagree on Reagan. That fuckwit screwed up damn near everything, and was responsible for the single largest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in history. He gutted the EPA, he engaged in illegal arms-for-hostages trades, and generally fucked up everything he touched.
Make no mistake, we’re still suffering with the effects of his presidency to this day. Not going to say he was worse than Trump, because it’s hard to imagine anyone being worse than Trump, but lordy, he still wasn’t good.
There was the same feeling here in fhe UK with Starmer, although he’s not the leader everyone wants, he at least is driving the bus in fhe right direction.
Save your ire for a few months. No sane politician is going to spout exacting policy this close to an election. Why give your enemy so much as a single bullet?
We get her in, then we go into analyses like yours, feet to the fire. ATM, I’m going to STFU, not say a word against her until she’s soundly whipped Trump, idealism comes later.
Except that will never happen. Because we saw it not happen with Biden.
The date at which it will become acceptable to do anything other than STFU will keep getting pushed back. Later means never.
Politicians exist to get elected. How do you expect to hold their feet to the fire after you elect them? Give them four years to do a bunch of nothing then switch back to saying “now isn’t the time to ask for change, we have to defeat the Toupee 2.0!”?
I’ll save you some time and respond for you: “yOu MuSt WaNt ToUpEe To WiN!!1!”
Completely delusional to equate the two
Compare what, exactly?