375

Kamala Harris vs. Fox News: ‘She totally schooled Bret Baier’ | Reaction (www.nj.com)

submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

38 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Vice President and Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris sat for an interview with Fox News anchor Bret Baier on Wednesday night and skewered Republican nominee and former president Donald Trump on several occasions.

…

Lincoln Project founder Rick Wilson: “Kamala came to Fox to stack bodies.”

In the most controversial part of the interview, Baier played a clip of Trump insisting that liberals were the enemy because he has been investigated “more than Al Capone.” When Baier asked for Harris’ reaction, she pounced:

“With all due respect, that clip was not what he has been saying about the ‘enemy within’ that he has repeated when he’s speaking about the American people,” Harris said. “That’s not what you just showed.”

Baier tried to interrupt, but Harris kept going.

all 39 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] ccunning@lemmy.world 149 points 1 month ago

Lincoln Project founder Rick Wilson: “Kamala came to Fox to stack bodies.”

😂

…and on a more serious note:

Former New York Congressman Max Rose called it “a home run, because she sent the one message that needs to be sent, which was, ‘I will go anywhere at any time and show the courage necessary to speak to every American,’ because that’s what a real president does. The primary critique against her prior to this point was that she was not doing enough interviews. No one thought that the Fox News interview was going to go swimmingly every step of the way. Everyone knew it would be adversarial, but she showed exactly what she needed to show, which was that she is a leader, ready to be president on Day One.”

[-] blazeknave@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

My old boss personally pushed Rose out behind the scenes, woke up, can't bring his wife back from Trump now.

[-] malloc@lemmy.world 66 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The interview was interesting and glad candidates are willing to go into these hostile territories even if the conversation falls on deaf ears. For me, I was never undecided. I am voting Democrat.

What I want to know: will a Kamala-Walz adminstration have a unified house and senate to push this country forward (getting Roe v Wade codified to start)? All of this focus/media attention on the presidential elections but we need to flip seats.

What’s the temperature across the country right now?

[-] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 43 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

There's good odds of flipping the house back, and we've got a decent chance of keeping the senate or getting a 49-50-1 senate with a union leader Indepdent from Nebraska

The campaigns themselves do also focus on those down ballot races. We can help with those!

Find opportunities to volunteer for dems around you and online

Write letters to voters in competitive downballot races (or swing states too)

Donate or volunteer for the Nebraska Indepdent Dan Osborn for senate (no dem running by intention)

[-] redeyejedi@lemmy.world 22 points 1 month ago

Agreed we gotta vote blue down ballot in order for any real change to be possible. Im hoping that people realize what a threat the republican party has become to the very soul of what America stands for. So here's hoping.

[-] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

It’s going to be really challenging for Democrats to win the Senate this year. The map is just really challenging and they’re defending a lot more seats. Anything is possible but it’ll take some upsets. https://www.270towin.com/2024-senate-election-predictions/

President and House are toss-ups. But if Kamala wins, 2026’s Senate elections look to strongly favor Democrats.

[-] abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us 1 points 1 month ago

Ah, 2026 - that's a bit of good news that I wasn't expecting. I guess it's too soon to know if Dems will retain the House then, but once Dems control all three -

[-] lennybird@lemmy.world 49 points 1 month ago

Idk how any swing voter doesn't come away from that interview thinking Harris did very well, and the interviewer was beyond incompetent with his interruptions.

[-] tiefling@lemmy.blahaj.zone 40 points 1 month ago

There's no undecided voters, just uneducated voters and people ashamed to vote Fascism

[-] TheDoozer@lemmy.world 21 points 1 month ago

There are people undecided on whether they will be voters. Plenty of people who would vote Republican who could not bring themselves to vote Democrat even against fascism, or a candidate with dementia, or a felon, might be convinced to just stay home. And plenty left-leaning types who can't be assed to go to a ballot box might find the motivation when they have someone that actually seems presidential, who they might want to have as a president (when apparently the threat of fascism wasn't enough of a motivation).

[-] oxjox@lemmy.ml -5 points 1 month ago

Don’t we, as people opposed to a Trump presidency, wish interviewers were more controlling over a Trump as he avoids direct questions?

I don’t know how long you’ve been around to observe political discourse but no politician ever directly answers a question. This was something I observed as a child watching presidential debates. It annoyed the heck out of me - just answer the question. Instead, they take a kernel of the question to reply with a scripted response. It’s what they’re trained to do. This is more problematic today as responses are edited and reposted on social media.

Frankly, from the few clips I’ve watched, I thought Baier did great and wish more interviewers were as competent as he.

Whether or not Harris did well is another question. I’m seeing a wide array of opinions - r/conservative, while not swing voters are also not liberal voters, claim she was destroyed. I haven’t watched enough to say.

[-] CouncilOfFriends@slrpnk.net 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

There's a difference between asking the same question again after a non-answer (which is what all interviewers should do) and interrupting someone to prevent them from answering the question.

[-] oxjox@lemmy.ml -4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Exactly. She was avoiding direct questions and Baier was trying to keep her on track. I wish more interviewers would do this.

Q: How many illegal immigrants would you say your administration has released into the country.
A: I agree that this is an important topic.
Q: Do you have a rough estimate?
A: The point is we have a broken immigration system that needs to be repaired.
Q: (since she's not answering...) Your Homeland Security Secretary says about 6 million people.
This was just the preamble to his first question and she's already speaking from her script.
Q: When you came in to office you undid a number of Trump border policies. Do you regret this decision?
A: We tried to pass some legislation. - Baier points out the six Ds who voted against the bill and that this has nothing to do with their decision to undo what Trump had in place.

Harris is the one avoiding the questions and interrupting him.

I think this is a legit question. Had she given a legit answer and been honest with the audience, Fox News viewers, maybe she would have gained some respect. I am definitely in support of Harris but you have to look at this from the vantage point of Fox News viewers. From their perspective, she failed. I would hope that from her campaign's perspective, they see that she failed to reach the audience she was there to speak with.

[-] lennybird@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I've been watching politics for decades and have been on both sides of the political spectrum.

Nearly every politician is instructed to "answer the question you wish they had asked first." Why? Because, usually, interviewers especially on Fox News are not interested in asking legitimately good questions, but rather asking "gotcha" questions to drum up attention. This was not a good faith interview by Fox by any means. Some of these questions are Loaded, which answering directly either yes/no can be framed negatively with clips later on.

That being said, if you've watched as many Harris interviews as I have, she has a tendency to first answer the question broadly by giving context, and then usually circles back to the question at hand.

As the other user said, a professional interviewer acting in good with will still let the politician finish their train of thought — or even finish their sentence — before circling back to the question if they felt it wasn't answered directly enough.

I’m seeing a wide array of opinions - r/conservative, while not swing voters are also not liberal voters, claim she was destroyed. I haven’t watched enough to say.

All due respect but who gives a flying fuck what r/conservative thinks? The problem is they don't think. They're cheering for their side and would lick dogshit if the pile said Dems bad. They have a clear motive to frame everything as Donald being perfect and Harris stumbling at every turn.

[-] oxjox@lemmy.ml -3 points 1 month ago

usually, interviewers especially on Fox News are not interested in asking legitimately good questions, but rather asking “gotcha” questions to drum up attention.

In my experience, gotcha questions are outliers. Most of these sorts of interviews, and public debates, are composed of questions that are aligned with the viewer of that outlet. So when a politicians side steps the question asked, they're rejecting the opinions and concerns of the audience. I can't tell you how many times a "liberal" news outlet has interviewed a democratic candidate and the candidate fails to answer the question. Gotcha question or not, it pisses me off.

I disagree that the interviewer should allow the person to finish their thought. I prefer people to be direct when asked direct questions. This is not the time to speak broadly - that's what your campaign ads are for, that's what your social media is for, that's what your stump speeches are for. This is the moment to speak directly to the concerns of the outlet's audience - assuming they are in-good-faith questions.

Conservatives care about what conservatives think, as do moderates. There may be enough among them who might be swayed one way or the other depending on the dialog. The middle ground is where elections are won so what's happening in these forums is not irrelevant. Moreover (and where my mind is spending a lot of time these days), how blind are people in liberal forums to the larger premise of what they're observing and saying. People need to spend more time imagining what they're reading / hearing is being said about the other candidate. I'd this were a clip of Anderson Cooper interviewing Trump, how would liberals and conservatives react? I imagine just the mirror of what we're seeing now.

And, to be honest, I care about conservatives because they're Americans. They're my friends and neighbors and family members. They're being mislead by politicians and manipulated by corporations. The further we push each other away from each other, the more we fail to embrace our commonalities, the more likely we are to actually face a civil war. Allowing misinformation to continue like this is going to lead to nine conservative justices. "They're stupid" is not a good enough reason to write them off. The choices they make and the choices we make has an impact on the entire country now and for the foreseeable future. If you give a flying fuck about any young children in your family, you'd be a little more open to finding common ground with conservatives and calming the toxic atmosphere we're living in.

[-] LostMyRedditLogin@lemmy.world 43 points 1 month ago

I watched the whole thing. She did a good job overall with the hostile interview. I'm disappointed though she said Iran was the biggest concern for the US and not Russia. It came off neocon-ish. I hope we don't get another Zionist for Secretary of State or we're doomed for more instability in the Middle East. I also don't get how Russia isn't our number one enemy when they're still fucking with our elections and pushing Trump.

[-] FunderPants@lemmy.ca 22 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Let's recognize the possibility, at least, that as VP she is privy to information about Iran that the rest of us are not.

[-] Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world 20 points 1 month ago

Remember that Iran is currently providing drones to Russia, so it’s not as if they are fully separate threats. I would say both are at the moment big concerns, so I can see where the answer is coming from. At the same time, the primary reason for our current struggles with Iran is that Trump sabotaged the Iran nuclear deal. On the other hand, the struggles with Russia are primarily related to Putin.

[-] Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago

That is calculated I think... Having been stuck in forced proximity to Conservatives for awhile the party line is that Russia isn't as bad as people make it out to be, Putin is a good guy, the left is constructing Russia as a boogey man when they do "so much right".

Kamala I think is pretty adept at code switching. When dealing with Conservative audiences you pick your battles because if you trip too hard on one of their landmines where you have to go on a long fight to up end one of their propaganda efforts then chances are they stop listening to everything.

[-] oxjox@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 month ago

Because Iran is also fucking with our elections and threatening the life of at least one presidential candidate. Not to mention instability in the Middle East.

[-] twistypencil@lemmy.world 32 points 1 month ago

Your move Trump, go on MSNBC, doesn't have to be Maddow, just actually go and don't storm off to throw hamburgers at the wall while pooping your pants

[-] Dkarma@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Best I can do is shitting his pants on a terrible podcast.

[-] rayyy@lemmy.world 25 points 1 month ago

Kamala Harris took her message to Fox and filled in the viewers on areas that Fox never ever covered. She put a light in a very dark place. It is bound to help her a lot.

[-] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 24 points 1 month ago

She's driving home right now with Brett Baier's balls in her purse.

[-] LurkyLoo@lemmy.world 24 points 1 month ago

That's a good clip, well worth the very short time needed to watch it.

[-] jpreston2005@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Great clip, agreed. During Kamalas response, it shows bret twice, first he has a smug smile because he thinks he's tripped her up. The second time it cuts to him that smile is gone, because he knows she's killing it.

[-] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 18 points 1 month ago

I think, at best, this interview is a non-event. It's not going to make a difference with conservatives and it's not going to make a difference with her own base. Probably not for independents either. The biggest win is probably that she can say she did it, and Trump is too afraid to do the same.

[-] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago

It's not going to make a difference with conservatives

It's not going to make a difference with MAGAs. Nothing will. But the hold-their-nose Republicans are already starting to question whether or not everything they have been told about her is true, and casting further doubt on that could be enough to get them to leave the "President" line on the ballot blank. Seeing her responses, unfiltered by a pundit, could absolutely start that questioning. It could even start dominoes falling in their head that end up with a party affiliation shift in 2028 or 2032.

and it's not going to make a difference with her own base.

As you can see in this very thread, her excellent performance is definitely infusing more enthusiasm into her base. There's already a huge enthusiasm gap between the two candidates, and she's running up the score. That makes a measurable difference.

Probably not for independents either.

Actually—

The biggest win is probably that she can say she did it, and Trump is too afraid to do the same.

—I think this right here actually helps her with independents quite a bit. The ones I've talked to value discourse so much that hearing she's willing to engage with the other side like this might make them take notice.

[-] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 4 points 1 month ago

Hope you're right

[-] Dkarma@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Nah the win is all the people who are oblivious to politics and only go to places that show fox news getting to see the real her.

There are a ton of people who only watch fix not by choice but because that's the only station on at the various places they go like restaurants, bars etc.
It's also speaking to people who claim to be trump supporters but are really looking for Republican light.

[-] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 month ago

how Trump would fair

Well, bone apple tea!

[-] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

The news source of this post could not be identified. Please check the source yourself. Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

[+] reddig33@lemmy.world -14 points 1 month ago

I have no idea why any Dem would go on Fox News. It just gives them an air of legitimacy. You’re not going to change the minds of anyone that watches that channel. Just ask anyone with a family member who has been brainwashed by that toxic trash.

[-] geekwithsoul@lemm.ee 63 points 1 month ago

While it's true you can't reason someone out of a belief that they didn't reason themselves into, I think this may be surprisingly effective. It's not a clip on social media, it's not a meme, it's an interview with a real person from the same source they get their daily Trump booster from anyway.

For some, it may strike an emotional blow seeing the woman that Trump has vilified and cartoonishly caricaturized being strong and intelligent while he won't debate and at his own events rambles (or dances). She looks strong and he looks weak. Most will shake it off, but if even 1% decide just not to vote for Trump, it will probably be enough to swing some states. This wasn't primarily a call to reason or to change minds, it was a swing at making them doubt Trump and his message. The only way to counter someone like him is ridicule or stirring up doubts. I hate that this kind of thing is what it may take to beat him, but she did it well and it wouldn't have worked anywhere else but Fox News.

[-] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 39 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Not all Fox news viewers are the regular fox news watchers that are deep into their spin. It's often turned on in random buildings and such

It doesn't have to even change someone's mind all that much to be helpful for a campaign. If it even convinces some that Harris is not quite as [insert scary term] as they previously thought, they might not feel as much need to turn up to vote against her. Tiny percentage changes in turnout matter here

[-] EpicMuch@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 month ago

It does mean you’re going to get airtime to hospital / doctor waiting room captive audiences everywhere

this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2024

375 points (98.0% liked)

politics

19144 readers

2364 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News