2024 U.S. Elections | Trump wins

Nope.

Just listen for yourself, I already posted it once before.

"But we had to do it before 5:15 to be able to turn the machine around for the top of the 6 pm show'



Seriously, just admit you are wrong, its not that hard.


This doesn't add anything beyond quotes previously posted.
 
This doesn't add anything beyond quotes previously posted.
He literally said that they were under a time constraint to finish the interview due to her lateness :lol:

And if 'we were going to do 25-30 minutes' then why is 28 not perfectly within that paramater? If anything, the Harris campaign let it ran longer than what they negotiated for 'maybe 20'.

It's like 1984 here, 'The party wants you to ignore the evidence of your eye and ear'
 
I'm making an observation here based on the eye test of watching the actual interview as it was aired live, and the comments Baier himself added after the fact.

The old eye test!

According to Bret, Kamala showed up at 5:17. There was a 30 mins interview taking it to 5.47. They they had 13 mins to get the tape ready to air at 6pm.

If anything, it would make far more sense that it was Fox that needed to wrap up to meet the deadline. Kamala looked like she could have continued to expose Trump all day.

Sour grapes from Bret Baier because he didn't catch her with a gotcha moment.

Infact, it was him and Fox that got exposed as they played Trump being asked about him wanting to use the army against Americans, as opposed to using one of many of his quotes where he has said this, including the one one with Maria Bartiromo at the weekend.
Not only did they not use one of the original quotes from Trump, but they even cut short the one with Harris Faulkner where he said exactly the same to her about targeting Adam Schiff and Pelosi.

Fox are a propaganda machine. She went on there, held her own, didn't give and inch and dispelled a lot of the BS that they spew about her being low IQ or weak.
 
He literally said that they were under a time constraint to finish the interview due to her lateness :lol:

And if 'we were going to do 25-30 minutes' then why is 28 not perfectly within that paramater? If anything, the Harris campaign let it ran longer than what they negotiated for 'maybe 20'.

It's like 1984 here, 'The party wants you to ignore the evidence of your eye and ear'
What would those two minutes have changed for Harris anyway to have her team end the interview?
 
For Harris, it has less to do with preparation and everything to do with her natural speaking style. She's always talking like a prosecutor: trying to establish context, first discussing set-up facts and details, building a case. It's too slow to ever work in the type of fast paced environment like a hostile TV network. Her style of speaking simply doesn't work in that environment. She could prepare nonstop for weeks and it wouldn't matter, in my opinion. Someone like Newsom has a natural speaking style far more suited to going on a hostile TV network and getting interrupted because he's much more a quick on his feet and far better at adapting his points than Harris, who is more plodding and methodical. I think she was prepared just fine, she simply isn't suited to looking as good as someone like Newsom in those conditions. It's not like she ever was a quick thinker during the 2020 primaries.
 
What would those two minutes have changed for Harris anyway to have her team end the interview?
Precisely. And after they already let it run way past the negotiated time allocation, Schrodinger staffers, I guess.

And the elephant in the room is this, what incentive does Bret Baier have not to specifically say that her people were waving at him to end it? He said she got what she wanted out of the interview, his words, not mine, wouldn't it be a big win for him to be able to say he pressured her so hard her people prematurely ended it?
 
This is a good quote from Mediate

Following the interview, Baier blamed Harris’s team for the lack of time.

“We were supposed to start at 5 pm. This was the time they gave us,” he said. “Originally we were going to do 25 or 30 minutes, they came in and said, ‘Well, maybe 20.’ So it was already getting whittled down, and then the vice president showed up about 5:15. We were pushing the envelope to be able to turn it around for the top of six o’clock, so that’s how it started, and I could tell when we started talking that she was going to be tough to redirect without me trying to interrupt.” He concluded, “I had a lot of other questions.”

--------------------------

So all things said, the "Fox needed to cut the interview to air it unedited at 6pm" doesn't make sense, because they had about another 15 minutes they could've kept the interview going, even with Harris' late arrival.
The numbers you’re suggesting don’t make sense based on what Baier said though. Baier would have like this to go as long as possible I’m sure going into it, what interviewer wouldn’t, but he was expecting/hoping for a 30 minute interview, and they needed a hard starting point of 5:15 at the latest, which he says clearly, which brings them to approximately 5:45 so they have time to “turn the machine around”. To get the interview out at 6, they don’t have those 15 minutes to conduct more interview time. If they could use those 15 minutes and still get it out at 6, then they wouldn’t be saying “it needs to start at 5:15” for a (they’re aiming for) 30 minute interview
 
It was an ambush from beginning to end. She came in with a false sense of security after getting peppered with easy questions for weeks on shows like the View, Charlamage, Howard Stern, and Call me Daddy, and simply wasn't prepared for the obvious reality that Fox was going to mercilessly attack her with questions that suited the narratives of their own viewers.

Why didn't you fix the border for the first 3.5 years of your term ? How many illegals have come in under your administration. Why do most Americans feel the country is on the wrong track ? Why did you change your mind on illegals and criminals getting free gender surgery ?

Her team should've predicted the worst might happen and prepped her for it. Instead she wound up looking like a deer in the headlights. A completely pointless interview, especially given how she came in late (probably deliberately), her staff attempted to negotiate it down to 20 minutes on the fly, only having to abruptly cut it off because the interview clearly wasn't going well.

No, im sure she came in and thought it was going to be softball questions about her favorite recipes, what color she may paint the Oval Office and how she and Doug first met.

Come on man. She was well prepared, especially after some missteps on 60 mins.

She was never going give exact answers to "How many illegals have come in under your administration?" because be it 1mil or 10ml, there is no good answer.

The tactic was obviously to push back and put the onus back on Trump. The campaign have turned their attention almost solely onto Trump of the last few days and this was an extension of that.
 
For Harris, it has less to do with preparation and everything to do with her natural speaking style. She's always talking like a prosecutor: trying to establish context, first discussing set-up facts and details, building a case. It's too slow to ever work in the type of fast paced environment like a hostile TV network. Her style of speaking simply doesn't work in that environment. She could prepare nonstop for weeks and it wouldn't matter, in my opinion. Someone like Newsom has a natural speaking style far more suited to going on a hostile TV network and getting interrupted because he's much more a quick on his feet and far better at adapting his points than Harris, who is more plodding and methodical. I think she was prepared just fine, she simply isn't suited to looking as good as someone like Newsom in those conditions. It's not like she ever was a quick thinker during the 2020 primaries.

Agreed. From what I've seen from her over the years, she is most comfortable being the questioner (Kavanaugh, Bill Barr etc), and when she's being interviewed, she prefers to have friendly interviews with people who generally already agree with her about what's being discussed. This was the first time i think I've seen her in an antagonistically hostile environment where the interviewer was predictably only going to ask absurdly hard questions, particularly as he was pressed for time.

Also, agreed on Gavin. He and Buttigieg have proven they can go into the guts of the machine at Fox and have their way with them. That's how its done.
 
For Harris, it has less to do with preparation and everything to do with her natural speaking style. She's always talking like a prosecutor: trying to establish context, first discussing set-up facts and details, building a case. It's too slow to ever work in the type of fast paced environment like a hostile TV network. Her style of speaking simply doesn't work in that environment. She could prepare nonstop for weeks and it wouldn't matter, in my opinion. Someone like Newsom has a natural speaking style far more suited to going on a hostile TV network and getting interrupted because he's much more a quick on his feet and far better at adapting his points than Harris, who is more plodding and methodical. I think she was prepared just fine, she simply isn't suited to looking as good as someone like Newsom in those conditions. It's not like she ever was a quick thinker during the 2020 primaries.
This is a good post and I think why the debate format against Trump suited her. While I’m not his number one fan, Mayo Pete’s style suits him well on Fox because he is so fast at getting to counterpoints. Not sure if that’s his Oxford debating or military intel/“military Uber” background or just a personality thing.
 
@Raoul leaving aside the circular he said she said stuff, I'm thinking that perhaps you're not used to these kind on interviews in the states.

This seemed like a totally standard political interview by the standards over here. Every single politician gets interviewed like this on a regular basis.

Having seen this style all the time, I think she did fine. I wouldn't bat an eyelid if a politician had a performance like this on contentious issues over here.
 
@Raoul leaving aside the circular he said she said stuff, I'm thinking that perhaps you're not used to these kind on interviews in the states.

This seemed like a totally standard political interview by the standards over here. Every single politician gets interviewed like this on a regular basis.

Having seen this style all the time, I think she did fine. I wouldn't bat an eyelid if a politician had a performance like this on contentious issues over here.

I suspect its different where you are. In the US, most interviews aren't like going on Hardtalk or getting interrogated by the likes of Tim Sebastian or Mehdi Hasan. They are usually quite cordial, where candidates typically go on channels that aren't going to embarrass them with absurdly unfair questions. A few notable exceptions are Obama with Bill O'Reilly during the Super Bowl HT show in 2014 and Obama with Chris Wallace (then at Fox) in 2016.
 
I suspect both sides were looking for a viral moment and neither go what they wanted.

Everything she said was a viral moment because she attacked Trump with every response, leaving Fox very little to run back. Baire admitted it himself.

That was clearly the plan, so to say "She came in with a false sense of security" is just a really poor observation.
 
Everything she said was a viral moment because she attacked Trump with every question, leaving Fox very little to run back. Baire admitted it himself.

Its hard to say anything went viral other than the interview itself; specifically how it was conducted and concluded. Even though Harris had much more to lose going in, neither Harris nor Baier can claim that they came out of the interview in better shape than they were going into it. At the end of the day, it won't move the needle, and if Harris wins, it will probably guarantee Fox are shut out of future interviews with the sitting POTUS.
 
Its hard to say anything went viral other than the interview itself; specifically how it was conducted and concluded. Even though Harris had much more to lose going in, neither Harris nor Baier can claim that they came out of the interview in better shape than they were going into it. At the end of the day, it won't move the needle, and if Harris wins, it will probably guarantee Fox are shut out of future interviews with the sitting POTUS.

Fox News and their selective editing of Trump is very much viral...


As is the contrast between the lovefest earlier in the day with Trump with his audience of GOP plants, to the attempted verbal assassination of Harris just hours later....



Will it move the needle, it could. I can almost guarantee there will not no Fox News viewer who will have seen that interview and flipped from Harris to Trump. Far more likely the other way because she showing she has backbone and she is not the dummy they have portrayed her as.

While he looks like a pussy who is making excuses and dropout out of debates, 60 mins and most recently CNBC. He knows he pooped his adult diaper during the debate, so he is just going to play it safe and keep running the trans and border attack ads for the next three weeks.
 
Fox News and their selective editing of Trump is very much viral...


As is the contrast between the lovefest earlier in the day with Trump with an audience of GOP plants, to the attempted verbal assassination of Harris just hours later....



Will it move the needle, maybe not. But she is showing that she has the backbone to go into the lion's den. He looks like a pussy who is making excuses and dropout out of debates, 60 mins and most recently CNBC. He knows he pooped his adult diaper during the debate, so he is just going to play it safe and keep running the trans and border attack ads for the next three weeks.


The first clip was a good moment for her imo. It was generally a mistake to negotiate that FNC be allowed to interject video in what was supposed to be an interview, not a tv segment.
 
For Harris, it has less to do with preparation and everything to do with her natural speaking style. She's always talking like a prosecutor: trying to establish context, first discussing set-up facts and details, building a case. It's too slow to ever work in the type of fast paced environment like a hostile TV network. Her style of speaking simply doesn't work in that environment. She could prepare nonstop for weeks and it wouldn't matter, in my opinion. Someone like Newsom has a natural speaking style far more suited to going on a hostile TV network and getting interrupted because he's much more a quick on his feet and far better at adapting his points than Harris, who is more plodding and methodical. I think she was prepared just fine, she simply isn't suited to looking as good as someone like Newsom in those conditions. It's not like she ever was a quick thinker during the 2020 primaries.

Exactly, and it's one of the key reasons I would’ve much preferred Newsom to run in her place, had we had a normal primary.

On the other side, you’ve got a loose cannon, completely lacking in attention to detail, swayed by whoever happens to be in his ear last.

'Murrica!!!
 
Exactly, and it's one of the key reasons I would’ve much preferred Newsom to run in her place, had we had a normal primary.

On the other side, you’ve got a loose cannon, completely lacking in attention to detail, swayed by whoever happens to be in his ear last.

'Murrica!!!

Newsom / Whitmer would've made a pretty solid ticket imo. If Harris loses, I suspect both will be in the mix for 28.
 
I suspect its different where you are. In the US, most interviews aren't like going on Hardtalk or getting interrogated by the likes of Tim Sebastian or Mehdi Hasan. They are usually quite cordial, where candidates typically go on channels that aren't going to embarrass them with absurdly unfair questions. A few notable exceptions are Obama with Bill O'Reilly during the Super Bowl HT show in 2014 and Obama with Chris Wallace (then at Fox) in 2016.
Yup exactly. Most interviews here are robust. It's pretty normal to hear a journalist arguing back and forth with a politician. And being used to that, I thought she did fine.
 
I haven't watched her interviews, what kind of hard questions has she been getting?
 
I'm just Occam's razoring this: Fox set this up as a hit. They literally had pre-planned photos of (beautiful white) girls who'd been killed by evil nasty immigrants ready to roll. The whole tone was one of dominance and overpowering to try and fluster into a meme, which would then be the story.

For me, they also had this 'she ran away' narrative ready to go in advance, in case they failed to get their moment. Which they did. Because she did fine.
I haven't watched her interviews, what kind of hard questions has she been getting?
Just watch the first interaction, it's indicative of the rest of the interview.
 
David Plouffe is one of the best American political strategists of the last 40 years alongside James Carville, we will see if he can deliver again in a few weeks

Is Plouffe as good as he was in 2008 though? The media landscape has changed massively since then. As has the demographics of the country and the nature of the opponent and his party.
 
You obviously didn't hear her with Charlamagne. Yes, he supports Harris, but he asked some pretty awkward questions. As did those in the town hall.

And since when has Rogan been some tough journalist? He is unresearched and just nods along with his mouth open when his guests are talking saying "wooooahhhh dude, I didn't know that". That is his problem - he lets people on his show, that often talk absolute nonsense and he has no ability to call them out or fact check them.

We don't know if she will go on there, but if she does, Trump will too. So it gives the audience a clear side by side of the two. The contrast couldn't be clearer.

It would be incredible if he just grew up and closed by saying “I’ll be voting for you. I have daughters and I can’t imagine having a sex offender as President. One that will take away women’s rights. I hope all my listeners do the same”

No amount of money will ever replace the feeling that he could die with that is “I decided the 2024 Election”.

It’s clearly the right thing to do and would inflate his ego in a way nothing else could.

I mean, obviously he won’t. But it’d melt the internet and he could sport that shit eating grin. Mainly because he’d be able to wear it all and say ‘You can’t cancel me bitch’ or whatever his latest catchphrase is.
 
Is Plouffe as good as he was in 2008 though? The media landscape has changed massively since then. As has the demographics of the country and the nature of the opponent and his party.
We won't know until Nov 5th but for now the Harris campaign has run a pretty tight and discipline operation regardless of good or bad news cycle, that's generally a good thing even though it gets some outlets pissed for lack of scoops.

In general I think Plouffe was a bit overrated since anybody can win 08 as Obama campaign manager (the Clinton campaign dropped the ball a lot that primary) and they failed to build on the unprecedented grassroots energy of that election, but to his credits he ran a pretty good 2012 campaign in a rather tough environment with Obama favorables underwater.
 
As I probably started this discussion about inflation, let me clarify what I meant.

My main point was how can many Americans believe it was the Biden administration that caused inflation. That's just utter nonsense.

All your points are valid and contributed to the raise of inflation.
I highlighted Trump's poor managing of the pandemic to be one reason. The stimulus packages, which weren't needed (except for the poor) and were mainly a distraction from his failures in handling the crisis, contributed further to the raise of inflation.
If you already a supply deficit then you don't increase demand by any means.
Did it play a major role? I don't know, probably not.
Again my point was to highlight that Trump takes more responsibility in causing inflation than Biden.

But still he gets away with his lies that it was Biden who caused the inflation. Worse there enough stupid people who believe this nonsense.
Agree, except one thing: the stimulus package. That was needed for the middle class as well, and of course for businesses. It helped pay the bills and retain staff. Without it we personally would have been in trouble (we are middle class).

The other thing is, a lot of that money ended up in fraudulent hands. Especially individuals with ‘fake’ companies and of course lots of republicans who voted against the stimulus bills.
 
I think what he was talking about there is the First Step Act.

Though President Donald Trump was initially skeptical of the legislation, intense lobbying by his son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner eventually persuaded him to back the bill and push for a floor vote in 2018. Kushner's efforts included contacting the Murdoch family (who own Fox News) to encourage positive coverage, appearing on Fox, securing Vice President Mike Pence's support, scheduling policy time discussions with Trump, and arranging meetings with celebrities like Kanye West and Kim Kardashian and media players like Van Jones to lobby Trump.

So his old racist ass was actually against it but just did it as a favor to his son in law and big celebs like Kim K and West.