Yeah, I know it’s a contrarian take around these parts, but I still think (a) media coverage matters on the margins [and saltiness about lack of access is going to taint how they cover her] (b) campaigns are most vulnerable when there is a single line of attack. If I were the Rs I’d want the story about Kamala to be that she is an unknown/unproven quantity who was thrust into the race at the last second. You don’t combat that narrative with coconut memes and shout outs from pop stars.
I’m not saying she needs to spend every moment of the campaign in a DC green room, but she should throw them a small bone before the fact that she hasn’t done it becomes the story itself. I just don’t want to be sitting around in 2025 making morbid jokes about how the lack of a Jake Tapper interview became the new “but her emails.”
The problem is it doesn’t matter what she does the media is going to hold her to an insane double standard and hammer her on something.
People rightfully hate the media. Nobody actually gives a shit what they’re whining about. Better for her to ignore them then do the interviews and still get shit on (which is guaranteed). Just don’t engage them. Fuck ‘em.
I think this is true, sure, but I also think that is why BON has a good point. The media will always feel obligated to hammer her on something, yes, but it’s much better if that’s a perpetually changing thing than if it’s one coherent thing constantly. The more you make them have to come up with new material, the weaker that narrative is going to be, and the more diluted the mixed attacks will be.
She should do an interview and every time they grill her on how something is going to be paid for or how she is going to accomplish something she should give the same fucking answer Trump does: Hannibal Lector is going to get it from the couches JD Vance is fucking.
Yup, and the frustrating thing is that undoubtedly the interview will just shift the attacks from “Kamala is refusing to give us any policy details” to “Kamala finally gave us some policy details, how is she going to pay for them? Many are skeptical” yada yada. I think there’s a tightrope she can walk where she can deliver some feel-good substance with just little enough detail that she can’t be nailed to the wall for it. It’s doable but it will be tough to dial in.
Just answer “mexico is going to pay for it” every time. Dead pan. They never pressed trump for an explanation so I don’t see why they’d press her for one.
Yeah this. 99 cogent answers will be utterly ignored over one slip up which will be played 10 billion times as a sound bite.
The Trump camp freaking out trying to get her to talk to the media says everything. They’re not worried she might make some really good policy arguments that will sway swing voters. No one who isn’t already decided will pay any attention to anything but the sound bites.
It’s a lose/lose game. The press is going to pull “Donald the Dove, Hillary the Hawk” bullshit and apply completely lopsided standards to Donald Trump.
Do a bare minimum number of interviews and debates, tell the press “I’m talking directly to the American people”-style bullshit (I think this is what Trump tells them?), just hope that voters don’t really care about how many press interviews a candidate does.
It would be malpractice to change strategy or do anything differently while she’s still gaining in the polls. Once she peaks or starts losing back some ground, then they can start to entertain obliging the media imo
Waltz knows some stuff. I do some upkeep around the building for a break on rent. The landlord wanted me to sweep the street gutter. I mentally rolled my eyes but I have to admit it makes a difference.
