Well, Kamala, it depends on what the meaning of the word “debate” is
First, take a look at how Kamala Harris explained her attack on Biden during the Democratic debates in light of her now accepting the VP spot on his ticket:
Ha ha ha. So funny I forgot to laugh, as my brother used to say around 1958.
Harris’ approach doesn’t need to be convincing for the people inclined to vote for her, of course. All they care about is that Trump is the personification of evil.
However, what Kamala does here is of interest to me. It hinges in part on the definition of the word “debate,” a designation that has long troubled me as applied to the “debates” during a campaign year. They are opportunities for a series of short sound bites and often have little to do with logic. They do not resemble, for example, the debate competitions in schools in which competitors are usually assigned the sides for which they must argue. Debate in that sense is a game or sport where students learn how to speak persuasively for any side rather than to express their own views:
The subject of the dispute is often prearranged so you may find yourself having to support opinions with which you do not normally agree…
It is an excellent way of improving speaking skills and is particularly helpful in providing experience in developing a convincing argument. Those of you who are forced to argue against your natural point of view realize that arguments, like coins, always have at least two sides.
But campaign debates are quite different. They are billed as an opportunity for candidates to present their views and plans to the American people, as well as to criticize those of their opponents. For a candidate, the point of such debates is – supposedly – to inform the people what you think, who you are, and what you plan to do as president (Kamala was running for president at the time she criticized Biden). And yet here she is saying that no, it’s a game and a sport in which you adopt positions for strategic and competitive reasons, and it’s perfectly okay if those positions are fake.
It’s a debate, stoopid! Like in school!
And that actually does sum up Kamala Harris rather perfectly, which is also interesting. In her attempt to cover up and make excuses for herself, she reveals herself as an ambitious and shameless opportunist with zero principles to which she will stick other than that of ambition. Now, ambition is certainly a characteristic of all who would be president. And politicians often change their minds, although it helps to have a bit more time between one point of view and its opposite. But we like to think that there’s some sort of steady political principle involved, too. However, Harris and Biden (or what’s left of him) are marked by their extreme lack of principle, which makes them perfect for the election of 2020.
I don’t think this knowledge about Harris (or Biden, for that matter) will hurt her support among Democrats. I think they believe it’s a feature, not a bug. Both Biden and Harris are whatever the voters imagine them to be, and of course their most salient characteristic is that neither is Trump. And if they are elected, they will do whatever the far left tells them to do. And for a large number of people who plan to vote for them, that is also a feature and not a bug.
Public exposure of both Biden and Harris during the remainder of the campaign is a plus for Trump.
Biden is senile and Harris is compulsively glib. She has a weird affect which she cannot control or – even worse – she consciously cultivates.
“And if they are elected, they will do whatever the far left tells them to do.” [Neo]
And if they are not elected, Scott Adams Tweet (Transcribed, as posted at Instapundit @12:10 pm 8/16/20):
Given that the left has yet to stop questioning the validity of the 2016 election, is any part of Adams’ hypothesis at all beyond belief? In several readings today, I noted that several authors have come to this conclusion. Adams’ just writes it most succinctly.
Something like 40% of the voters would cast their vote for almost anybody who is “not Trump” (as an aside, it’d be interesting to see actually if they would vote for a known serial killer or indisputable pediphile), so it obviously doesn’t matter much to them what Kamala or Biden’s history is.
That said, there’s some hypothetical unknown group of persuadable voters in key swing districts that are still up for grabs perhaps. I don’t know who these people are and what’s important to them at this point. Would it be important to such peoplethat Kamala has clearly severely flip-flopped to the point that it’s pretty obvious that she doesn’t really have an real principals beyond the aquiring of power? I can’t say. I’m finding it more and more difficult to understand people who can’t make up their minds, if these people even actually exists in any great numbers.
” I’m finding it more and more difficult to understand people who can’t make up their minds,” [Nonapod @ 4:05 pm]
I think it’s possible that the largest majority of the elecotrate has already made up its mind and that reamining swing voters could play a small role this election. Those who hate Trump will vote against him; that they reached their voting position without reasoning means that no rationale argument will cause them to change it (and how can one rationally defend a vote for and increasingly senile candidate). Those who will vote for Trump have, in my speculation, already reached that conclusion as well. Barring some black swan as we approach November 3rd, the anecdotal inferences I keep encountering make me believe that Trump will win and that while I don’t expect a landslide, I get the feeling that it will be decisive.
Cue Scott Adams’ conspiracy which puts the vote-by-mail canard in a whole new light. All of this is pure speculation, except perhaps, Scott Adams.
Agree with all the above comments, hence the “basement strategy”. No need to have Harris/Biden out in public answering questions and possibly exposing themselves as to their true nature to the few undecideds.
Adams has the future well-predicted. I would just add the CW2 starts Nov. 4th. The Dems have basically laid all the ground work for that to happen. I keep trying to convinced my wife and some family members of the danger we are facing, but they just fall back into the “you’re just such a pessimist!” response. I keep hoping I see something here at Neo’s and in the news to dissuade me from that position, but as we get closer to the election, I get more depressed.
“I don’t think this knowledge about Harris (or Biden, for that matter) will hurt her support among Democrats.”
Totally agree.
Dems are on the same page and they know what to do without needing to be specifically asked.
Obama was Kenyan when that was useful. He was native-born when that was needed.
Dem primary voters ditched blacks, women, gays … in order to pick Biden in hopes of tricking those backward “moderate” voters.
The Dem Platform does NOT have 20 things they’ve trumpeted all year: Green New Deal, healthcare and amnesty for illegals, massive new taxes to make up for shutting down the economy for months, … the list goes on and on. But all Dems know that they’ll get those agenda items.
Give anyone from Shenyang to Bangkok to Surabaya the basic Kamala Harris background bits from bio and they’ll immediately start emitting very politically incorrect things about the particular ethnic normal distribution she hails from.
Here’s the Z Man with his take on who is backing her and why:
https://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=21104
Like it or not, we were all born wearing our uniforms (our genes being Jacquard’s punch cards) and only the terminally stupid will try to argue otherwise. This doesn’t mean that we’re headed for a war of all against all. But in this insane high immigration, invade the world invite the world globalist cluster ##$@ we find ourselves in, we’re all going to have to get used to making tribal loyalty calculations and forming pragmatic alliances. Pragmatic alliances: none of this We are the World / Proposition Nation nonsense.
We certainly are headed for a war of Many A against Many B. It’s unavoidable at this stage. Clear thinking needed ahead of time as won’t be many opportunities to defect when things start going badly for one side.
Rusted on Democrats will vote for her. So of course will many blacks even though she’s not one of them. But (and I recall someone pointed this out to me in another thread) she’s unlikely to energise the black vote. Certainly (unlike Obama) she isn’t the son every old black lady wishes she’d had instead of the ones she got.
The Stick it To Whitey motivation + Gibsmedat motivation will remain unchanged… but Kamala isn’t a new collectible sneaker by a long shot.
Wow… I think I’ve just figured out a way to knock out the black vote: subvert Nike and release something new on polling day. My self-hating 12.5% rubs hands with glee 🙂
Just saw a meme this evening with 2 photos of Kamala.
One is labeled 2016 and says “First Indian-American Senator”
Second is from 2020 and says “First Black Female VP pick”
and a cat with a magic wand saying “Whoosh! You’re black!”
She’s not even black …
Doesn’t matter.
She knows it doesn’t matter.
Colbert knows…deep in his heart…it doesn’t matter.
Margin of fraud + 45/odd% is all they’re asking for & if they lose…4 more years of rioting & destabilization.
The Long Game means the Ds & hard core “tear this mother up” radicals just find something else to destroy that they haven’t already.
Who’s stopping ’em?
Biden-Kamala talking points (short version):
– We’re full of it.
– We know it.
– And we know you know it.
– TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP (together with our unabashed self-knowledge and ability to mouth unpleasant truths) is why voting for the Democratic Party ticket is the ONLY conscionable choice for America in November.
– Join us. Let us be united—in HATE and RESISTANCE—together.
It was a debate. Debaters tell any lie, strike any pose, make up and cite any fact to win.* Of course district attorneys lie to win. Of course lawyers lie to win. Of course politicians lie to win. Harris does what is natural to her, her profession, and her vocation.
* Recall the video a few years ago of the national student debates, where a team just shouted “racist” over and over to win.
Just spoke to a client of mine who is ethnic Tamil from Sri Lanka. He is not impressed with Comma-la, since she didn’t do anything to help her Tamil brethren during the Sri Lankan civil war.