Liberal publication reveals what Democrats might blame Harris' loss on
Kamala Harris could lose the election for a multitude of reasons. For starters, she has alienated a great many men, Christians, pro-life advocates, and Hispanic voters and has struggled to distinguish herself politically from President Joe Biden. Axios suggested on Sunday that what might ultimately cost Harris the White House is her strategic lack of transparency. The left-leaning publication indicated that Harris and her team have repeatedly dodged questions about her political positions, responding with only, "No comment." Harris, dubbed the "'no comment' candidate," has reportedly refused to indicate whether she still supports providing reparations to black Americans; "sanctuary cities"; the restoration of voting rights for all former prison inmates; welcoming multitudes of foreign nationals supposedly displaced by "climate change" to flood into the U.S.; providing taxpayer-funded sex-change mutilations to illegal aliens; ending the detention of illegal aliens; massive restrictions on drilling for oil; giving millions of illegal aliens smuggled into the country a pathway to citizenship; ending the death penalty; forcing automakers to cease building gas-burning vehicles by 2035; decriminalizing prostitution; closing private, for-profit prisons; and abolishing the Senate filibuster. 'There's no indication that Harris needs to offer specific, potentially divisive policies on any issue.' In an apparent effort to appeal to moderates without disenchanting radical leftists, Harris — reportedly the second-most liberal Democratic to serve in the U.S. Senate in the 21st century — has tried to run out the clock on answering questions about what she actually believes in, responding only with doublespeak and conflicting messages. For example, when Harris finally sat down for an interview with CNN's Dana Bash in August after dodging the press for five weeks, the vice president said, "My values have not changed." This quote prompted numerous sleuths to dig into what policies Harris previously signaled support for. After KFile highlighted Harris' radical responses to a 2019 American Civil Liberties Union questionnaire, CNN's investigative outfit asked her campaign about whether the vice president's values had in fact changed — whether she still supported decriminalizing crack nationwide, giving felons taxpayer-funded sex-change operations, and exacerbating the border crisis. The Harris campaign responded with a lengthy non-answer about how her "positions have been shaped by three years of effective governance as part of the Biden-Harris administration." There were hints earlier on — besides Harris' refusal to sit down for interviews — that the vice president might be noncommittal policy-wise, short on answers, and keen to prioritize style over substance. The Atlantic's Spencer Kornhaber noted in August that Harris' "oddball charm satisfies the content demands of the moment," suggesting that it mattered less what Harris was saying and more how she said it. The New Republic recommended in September that Harris ignore the pressure to commit to specific agenda items and to instead rely on a "vibes- and values-based argument": There's no indication that Harris needs to offer specific, potentially divisive policies on any issue — and all of the early signs suggest that doing so would be a mistake. Harris herself is not a wonk — she flopped in 2020 in part because she struggled to compete in a wonky, policy-heavy primary. And yet, even if she were a policy dork, there's little reason to believe that it would necessarily boost her chances: In 2016, Hillary Clinton offered more than 200 distinct policy proposals and lost. It's left to be seen whether Harris' refusal to own up to her real views helped or hurt her cause electorally. However, Axios' Alex Thompson noted that "if she loses, she and her team will be blamed for leaving voters foggy about her true views and self. And President Biden will be blamed for backing a candidate with such a liberal track record." Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Kamala Harris could lose the election for a multitude of reasons. For starters, she has alienated a great many men, Christians, pro-life advocates, and Hispanic voters and has struggled to distinguish herself politically from President Joe Biden.
Axios suggested on Sunday that what might ultimately cost Harris the White House is her strategic lack of transparency.
The left-leaning publication indicated that Harris and her team have repeatedly dodged questions about her political positions, responding with only, "No comment."
Harris, dubbed the "'no comment' candidate," has reportedly refused to indicate whether she still supports providing reparations to black Americans; "sanctuary cities"; the restoration of voting rights for all former prison inmates; welcoming multitudes of foreign nationals supposedly displaced by "climate change" to flood into the U.S.; providing taxpayer-funded sex-change mutilations to illegal aliens; ending the detention of illegal aliens; massive restrictions on drilling for oil; giving millions of illegal aliens smuggled into the country a pathway to citizenship; ending the death penalty; forcing automakers to cease building gas-burning vehicles by 2035; decriminalizing prostitution; closing private, for-profit prisons; and abolishing the Senate filibuster.
'There's no indication that Harris needs to offer specific, potentially divisive policies on any issue.'
In an apparent effort to appeal to moderates without disenchanting radical leftists, Harris — reportedly the second-most liberal Democratic to serve in the U.S. Senate in the 21st century — has tried to run out the clock on answering questions about what she actually believes in, responding only with doublespeak and conflicting messages.
For example, when Harris finally sat down for an interview with CNN's Dana Bash in August after dodging the press for five weeks, the vice president said, "My values have not changed." This quote prompted numerous sleuths to dig into what policies Harris previously signaled support for.
After KFile highlighted Harris' radical responses to a 2019 American Civil Liberties Union questionnaire, CNN's investigative outfit asked her campaign about whether the vice president's values had in fact changed — whether she still supported decriminalizing crack nationwide, giving felons taxpayer-funded sex-change operations, and exacerbating the border crisis.
The Harris campaign responded with a lengthy non-answer about how her "positions have been shaped by three years of effective governance as part of the Biden-Harris administration."
There were hints earlier on — besides Harris' refusal to sit down for interviews — that the vice president might be noncommittal policy-wise, short on answers, and keen to prioritize style over substance.
The Atlantic's Spencer Kornhaber noted in August that Harris' "oddball charm satisfies the content demands of the moment," suggesting that it mattered less what Harris was saying and more how she said it.
The New Republic recommended in September that Harris ignore the pressure to commit to specific agenda items and to instead rely on a "vibes- and values-based argument":
There's no indication that Harris needs to offer specific, potentially divisive policies on any issue — and all of the early signs suggest that doing so would be a mistake. Harris herself is not a wonk — she flopped in 2020 in part because she struggled to compete in a wonky, policy-heavy primary. And yet, even if she were a policy dork, there's little reason to believe that it would necessarily boost her chances: In 2016, Hillary Clinton offered more than 200 distinct policy proposals and lost.
It's left to be seen whether Harris' refusal to own up to her real views helped or hurt her cause electorally. However, Axios' Alex Thompson noted that "if she loses, she and her team will be blamed for leaving voters foggy about her true views and self. And President Biden will be blamed for backing a candidate with such a liberal track record."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Originally Published at Daily Wire, World Net Daily, or The Blaze
What's Your Reaction?
