Kamala's CNN interview was a disaster!!
- Thread starter mitchell76
- Start date
Exactly.
We know that the Senate reached a deal and Trump said he wanted it as a political issue and then the House GOP came out against it.
So there isn't exactly a lot of evidence supporting the idea the House would have done what it did without Trump.
I am talking about being pragmatic.
She can't get rid of Mayorkas. Announcing she would gets her nothing, right?
As mentioned above, it will be immediately be dismissed as an empty gesture.
The people who actually care about him are heavily unlikely to vote for her based on that.
She also shows herself "caving" to the bullshit the GOP drummed up about him.
Think of it this way, you wouldn't switch your vote based on it, so why would it be helpful?
Maybe you're right, but I think she would benefit from separating herself somewhat more from Biden's policies and maybe some of the Biden team itself. You probably won't agree.
When I mention pragmatism, I mean she doesn't have to stick to the agenda of her predecessor or even the general Democratic platform. My opinion is that early on they nibbled around the edges of distancing herself from Biden and her recent past record. Her campaign now seems more than ever determined to campaign on Trump's negatives than Harris' own platform. (There has been some recent commentary that has questioned overreliance on this strategy.)
With Harris, I don't see a candidate with a strong sense of self. Rather I see a candidate who appears to be managed. Now if those managers come with the baggage of defending the Biden Administration, you can see the problem. This is just me thinking out loud and it is sure to cause dissent here. A few days after the election, we can have a healthier conversation. I see a lot of anxiety and tension from both sides coming out on social media.
PS- I don't think the GOP really had to "drum" up a whole lot on Mayorkas. I don't think he has been an effective spokesman for the Administration. Now he might be trapped by the Administration's internal objectives, but I think that's my point about Harris changing direction no matter how superficial or fair it is.
Maybe. Threading that needle is tricky.
I just see no benefit in saying anything specific about specific Cabinet members.
"I'm going to have my own Cabinet, with people I want there" is about all she should do (and is what she has done, if I recall).
There will be a fair amount of stability, especially if the GOP keeps the Senate, just due to the political reality.
I expect her national security people are the ones most likely to change (she seems to have more difference of opinion there and those are also usually easier to confirm).
But I don't think nearly enough people give a flying fuck about Mayorkas that a toothless announcement would benefit her at all only weeks out.
This is all Presidents ever, though.
They never just stick to the agenda of their predecessor (in the few cases where we've had a VP follow a President they served under) and while the official platform is a general guideline of where they go it has never been some kind of contract they don't deviate from.
You can always question strategy.
But first establishing herself as her own person and then in the end focusing on the Trump threat (especially as he makes his threats more explicit) doesn't seem crazy.
It probably has a lot to do with who needs to be convinced at what time.
Is it the right play? Who knows. These things are always somewhat opaque and the fact remains that people are motivated in multiple ways so I suspect no one has as much support for their pet view of how this all works as they claim to have.
That is the opinion the GOP has tried to foster in people and it has clearly worked on you.
And yes, conversations post-election are different than pre-election.
Seventeen days out from an election, people are only going to talk about the only thing that actually matters - given the two choices available, what are you going to choose?
Did you miss the entire "impeach Mayorkas" bullshit?
I've been one of the most magnanimous Republicans when discussing Harris. I don't go for cheap shots. I even said she did well on Fox News. I'm merely discussing her campaign strategy.
She still has the VP problem you acknowledged. Every VP has to try run their own campaign apart from the President without appearing to separate themselves too much. It's also possible much of her campaign team came over from the Biden team.
Mayorkas is an easy target. If you don't think there is problem at the southern border or you think the Biden Administration is doing everything they can at the border, this is all going to seem unfair and political.
Last edited:
It is also explicitly the narrative the GOP has been pushing, with the help of the MSM.
You can argue chicken or the egg about whether or not you came to it on your own.
But it is true.
I'm sure it did.
Like you say, nothing about that is unusual except the much more limited time frame she has had to work in.
Policy differences at the border are perfectly understandable.
Since when are those supposed to be impeachment issues?
The House has established lower thresholds for impeachment in recent years. I don't believe Mayorkas did anything that rose to high crimes and misdemeanors. That doesn't mean I think he performing his duties adequately.
For some reason, I'm surprised the Administration put a second Democratic term at serious risk over immigration. I think they underestimated the problems and discontent that would arise. That's just my opinion. People can feel Trump exaggerates the problem, but I think he just knows how to mirror voters' frustrations.
Right.
But the only reason "she has to ditch Mayorkas" is a thing is because the GOP made him an impeachment target that got laughed off.
You got your wish.
The Democrats moved decidedly toward the GOP position on immigration.
This has resulted in people saying obviously they won't do anything and are for open borders.
Oh Val, sometimes you have to move past an obvious desire to be an asymmetric participant. On MERB a few years back, you were a more flexible in your thought.
Can't we just tell mandrill and the others that Democrats screwed the pooch on immigration. Just like I admit abortion was a noose around Republicans necks in 2022. How I and many say Trump likely lost the 2020 election by mugging in front of the cameras during the initial virus outbreak.
Digging in on every party policy and action like its gospel just shows how absurd social media can be. There are lesser minds here that will cheerlead for every Democrat (and Republican) position regardless of consequence.
The Democrats finding a new path on immigration is something that is obviously happening.
The mood in the country has shifted and they lost the messaging war on it.
We're talking about your "She should have fired Mayorkas" idea.
You may think that - as a purely symbolic, messaging-only move - it would help.
I am deeply skeptical.
From a legal standpoint, she can't do it before she becomes president, so it is a paper tiger and will be presented as such.
From a messaging standpoint, it is easily turned into a win for Republicans on the issue, even as they constantly brand it as fake and meaningless because he's still there.
Earlier in the year, they tried to make Mayorkas the scapegoat with an impeachment hearing that fell utterly flat.
The general public does not care about Mayorkas - they care about immigration.
The people who do care about Mayorkas won't be impressed or change a single vote for her saying she will fire him if she wins.
My argument here is entirely on how useless your "she should say she will fire Mayorkas" comes across as.
Here we go! EVERYONE grab your vomit suit! Mitchy is triggered again.
BREAK OUT THE SUIT!!!!
BREAK OUT THE SUIT!!!!
Apparently, you don't understand the concept of throwing someone under the bus. It doesn't have to be fair, justified or a largely successful tactic. I'm cynical of both parties and how they conduct themselves.
Our discussion is at an impasse. People can see for themselves the extent of the immigration problem and decide Republicans are overwhelmingly better to handle it. Whether you believe there is a biased liberal media, having Martha Raddatz on ABC trying to diminish the migrant crime issue to a handful of apartment complexes taken over by Venezuelan gangs is a very bad look.
PS- You should move back and talk to people here. They're not stupid and being led around on a chain by Republicans. By the way, Martha Raddatz is too old for the liberal media game.
