From: allin
Recent interviews with prominent political figures have sparked discussions regarding their impact on voter perception and the broader political landscape. These interviews are often analyzed through a partisan lens, leading to varied interpretations of candidate performance [04:02:00].
The Perceived Impact of Recent Interviews
Commentators initially questioned whether recent interviews with Donald Trump on Bloomberg and Kamala Harris on Fox News would significantly alter the election dynamics [03:04:00]. The prevailing opinion was that their impact would be minimal, as most voters’ views were already “baked in” [03:12:00].
- Kamala Harris on Fox News: Her interviews generally do not go well, and it was suggested that her appearance on Fox News did not help her campaign, potentially causing her to fall further behind [03:19:00].
- Donald Trump on Bloomberg: Trump’s momentum over recent weeks was noted, with his interviews often viewed as more successful [03:15:00].
Media Bias and Voter Interpretation
There is a significant divide in how the media and public interpret these interviews. Supporters on the left often praise Harris’s performance, highlighting her defense and competency, while those on the right criticize it as an embarrassment [03:41:00]. A similar pattern emerged with Trump’s interview, where left-leaning media suggested he faltered, and right-leaning media praised his performance [03:51:00].
This phenomenon suggests that individuals often interpret interviews in a way that confirms their existing beliefs, leading to a “self-asserting” of pre-held opinions [04:02:00]. The question then becomes whether these interviews can sway the small segment of independent voters [04:16:00].
“Everyone on the left says Kamala did an amazing job on Fox…and then everyone on the right’s like she embarrassed herself…it’s almost like everyone’s just kind of like self asserting their their beliefs that they already hold when they judge these people on these interview shows at this point” [03:41:00].
Behind the Scenes of the Harris Interview
Reports indicate that Kamala Harris’s staff attempted to end her interview with Brett Baier after 26 minutes, with four people allegedly waving to cut it short [04:22:00]. This contrasts sharply with Trump’s 64-minute interview, suggesting Harris’s team might have felt the interview was not going well [06:09:00].
Analysis of Harris’s Performance
While Harris maintained composure, her answers were often lacking in substance, characterized by non-responses, filibustering, and deflection to basic questions [06:43:43]. She struggled to articulate policy differences from President Biden, beyond superficial demographic distinctions [08:21:00]. This inability to differentiate herself on policy is seen as a fundamental problem for her campaign, as voters still don’t know who she is or what she would do differently [08:44:00]. Her decision to do the interview was likely a strategic move to counter criticism about avoiding adversarial interviews [05:10:00].
“Stylistically I think she did well and remain composed substantively I think it was non-existent” [08:12:00].
Trump’s Interview Style
Donald Trump, in contrast, appears to relish adversarial interviews, effectively engaging with interviewers and often gaining audience support, as evidenced by a standing ovation during his Bloomberg interview [06:03:00].
JD Vance’s Controversial Statements and Interview Dynamics
Senator JD Vance’s statements, particularly his stance on not certifying the 2020 election, have been a recurring topic in his interviews [08:54:00]. However, it’s argued that for persuadable voters, this specific issue might no longer be a primary concern [09:32:00].
Instead, a more impactful interview for Vance was his exchange with Martha Raddatz, where he challenged her framing of foreign gangs taking over apartment buildings, exposing what was perceived as a media narrative disconnected from reality [09:48:00].
Vance’s broader message, concerning “control systems and biases” affecting the election process and outcome, is often lost when reporters focus on specific, reductive questions like his stance on the 2020 election certification [11:52:00]. He highlights concerns about social media censorship and voter verification as legitimate issues that should be addressed transparently [12:47:00]. This perspective aligns with broader discussions on the influence of media and public figures on elections and the impact of alternative media on elections.
General Election Dynamics: “Baked In” Views
Overall, both major candidates appear to be reiterating existing messages rather than introducing new content [10:41:00]. Their interviews largely serve to demonstrate their ability to handle combative reporting tactics, with supporters on both sides interpreting outcomes favorably for their candidate [10:50:00]. This leads to the conclusion that the election may already be “baked in,” with most voters having made up their minds [11:11:00].
Despite this, there’s a desire for the “rules of elections” to be tightened, potentially through measures like making election day a federal holiday and requiring voter ID [14:00:00]. Cleaning voter rolls and establishing minimum standards for voter verification are seen as ways to increase trust and combat “election denial” [14:50:00].
October Surprises
The likelihood of a significant “October surprise” altering the election outcome is considered low, as no major shocking moments have occurred in the lead-up to the election [11:16:00].