Kamala Harris is faking moderation — and voters aren't buying it
Category: News & Politics
Via: texan1211 • 4 weeks ago • 61 commentsBy: Daniel McCarthy Published (New York Post)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
By Daniel McCarthyPublished Sep. 10, 2024, 5:43 p.m. ET Democratic presidential nominee and Vice President Kamala Harris speaks behind a protective glass during a campaign stop on Sept. 4, 2024. REUTERS
Kamala Harris is losing the fight for the American middle.
In the latest New York Times/Siena College poll, a plurality of respondents — 44% — label her "too liberal or progressive."
Only 42% say she's "not too far either way," compared to a solid 50% who say that about Donald Trump.
But it's not only voters who think Harris is too far left; the vice president herself agrees.
That's why she's running like a wannabe Republican, even welcoming support from Liz and Dick Cheney.
She's tried to make "freedom," the traditional rallying cry of conservatives, her campaign's watchword.
The newly contrived policy pages of Harris' website downplay what she and Joe Biden have actually done these last four years, and instead emphasize what she says she'll do if elected in November.
The section is titled "A New Way Forward" despite the fact that she's already in power — and, given Biden's debility, Harris is more than just a junior partner at this point.
In the four years she served in the US Senate, independent analysts graded Harris one of the body's most liberal members, or its single most liberal.
Now, however, Harris is trying to co-opt classic Republican issues, with the first heading on her policy page promising to "cut taxes for middle class families."
The actual policy is effectively plagiarized from Trump's running mate: After J.D. Vance proposed a $5,000 child tax credit for families, the Harris camp rolled out a $6,000 credit.
Harris, a candidate who famously wanted to ban fracking when she ran for president four years ago, isn't just backtracking on her record and attempting to sound like a member of the opposite party.
She wants to switch places with the GOP, branding Trump as the high-tax candidate.
To do that, Harris' camp is claiming that the tariffs Trump would impose on foreign goods are really taxes Americans will have to pay.
Some free-market pundits hate tariffs — and Trump — so much that they're going along with this argument, even though elementary economic theory shows it's wrong.
A tariff makes a foreign product more expensive — but consumers don't magically wind up with more money in their pockets when prices rise.
And a higher price doesn't make a product more attractive, but just the opposite; if prices rise, demand falls.
Companies, meanwhile, whether foreign or domestic, always try to set their prices to make maximum profit; they don't underprice their goods.
If a business could sell as many widgets by charging $11 instead of $10, it would already be charging that much, regardless of tariffs.
A producer can only "pass on" the cost of a tariff if consumers are willing and able to pay more for the same product they've already been buying — yet if they were willing to pay more, the producer would already be charging more and making a higher profit.
It's the company's profit, not the consumer price, that's most heavily affected by a tariff.
And if the price consumers are asked to pay does go up, they have alternatives: what economists call "substitute goods."
When tariffs are put on foreign goods, domestic goods become a substitute, though it's also possible that consumers might substitute an entirely different kind of product.
If there's a tariff on Golden Delicious apples, consumers might switch to Granny Smiths, or they might start buying oranges instead.
To make her case, Harris is counting on the widespread economic ignorance and the prejudices of market-minded pundits who will conveniently forget all they know about price theory when the despised word "tariffs" — or "Trump" — is spoken.
Free-market purists dislike tariffs because they reduce the overall quantity of goods: If companies pay tariffs out of their profits, they don't have as much money to invest in new production, and if companies try to raise prices, consumers don't buy as much as they used to.
There's also a fear that, in protected markets, domestic producers will be able to charge more simply because there's less competition.
But the opportunity to make more profit in a protected market is also an incentive for more domestic firms to enter that market, which again puts downward pressure on prices and increases the volume of goods.
Trump may expect too much from his tariffs — both in terms of revenue and how much they'll bolster domestic production.
But it's foreign profits and foreign production that are squeezed the most by tariffs, not American consumers.
Trump means tariffs, yes — but Harris means things like a 25% tax on unrealized capital gains.
Polls show Harris' attempt to sell herself as a Reaganesque Democrat is failing.
Free-market advocates can't afford to be less perceptive than the ordinary voters who recognize Harris is too far left.
Daniel McCarthy is the editor of Modern Age: A Conservative Review.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
391 visitors
Harris is a known radical leftist.
No amount of lying by her or her sick-o-phants will change the facts.
America, please wise up.
Don't vote for this radical!
We can never afford her policies!
If people do not vote for Harris then Trump wins thus you are rooting for Trump to win.
This is as plain as I can be:
I am not rooting for either one of the two clowns.
Why is this point so hard to accept?
Now, anything else to say about how we really can't afford Harris' 'policies'?
A one-sided 'do not vote for Harris' without a 'do not vote for Trump' is implicit support for Trump.
And as a contextual backdrop note that this is a hit piece on Harris —one of many in your collection— yet not a single hit piece on Trump.
The rooting is obvious.
That established, the question is why people should not vote for Harris and thus allow Trump to win the presidency. What is the rationale for wanting people to take action that would result in this demonstrably irresponsible scoundrel having the power of the presidency?
No, it simply is as you choose to perceive it.
As previously explained, there are so many hit pieces on Trump, what could I add?
Your opinion only.
No.
Trump being unfit for office doesn't make Harris fit, any more than it did Biden, no matter how you slice it.
Yet here you are attacking someone for pointing that out.
Why the hell should anyone vote for Harris- especially conservatives? The Biden/Harris administration has been a complete shit show. Why should Harris be rewarded with being president? Think the current border Czar is going to suddenly shut down the border and stop the flow of illegals- despite all of her past comments; and failure to do anything about the border or illegal immigration for the past 4 years? Think she is suddenly going to be for not letting the Trump tax cuts expire- which will hurt the poor and middle class. Think she will turn against packing the Supreme Court; or following through on Biden's plan to enact term limits and change the way the court functions? Think she won't work to federalize all election laws? Do away with the electoral college? Won't try to follow through with her plan of giving $25000 to first time home buyers, including illegals, and injecting billions of government money into construction to get new homes on the market (with all of the inflation, worker, and materials shortages that will bring.)? Think she is only joking about price fixing of all goods? Think she will suddenly pivot and start loving Israel and stop funding the endless Ukraine sinkhole? Think she will get tough with China and Iran, and start to negotiate with Russia? Think she will actually honor her flip flop on fracking- and not try to ban it? Think she is only joking about taxing unrealized gains?
Why don't you jump on John (or any of the dysfunctional leftists on this site) for not posting any anti-Harris pieces? They seem to have an endless supply of anti-Trump pieces. Many of which they are now regurgitating that have been proven false long ago.
Spin as hard as you want. Harris sucks as much as Biden as a candidate. Her track record proves it.
WOW!!!!!!! Absolutely 100 percent on the mark. Down, dirty and not a bit of partisanship in the whole post.
The left is at the point where if you only post a couple of sentences criticizing Trump but focus your opinion mostly on Harris, then you must absolutely be a Trump voter, or cultist, as some like to put it., but then absolutely deny being a Harris supporter when their opinion focuses on a very minor criticism about Harris, but focus the other six paragraph opinion about Trump, that absolutely does not make them a Harris supporter.
I thank you for putting your post so eloquently but firm.
He’s not rooting for Trump to win, he’s rooting for nihilism and the country to be burned to the ground. Such a patriot.
You and yours had three years to shitcan Trump, a known traitor, and did nothing. Why didnt the Republican Party get behind Haley ? They are afraid of MAGA, thats why. Now the die is cast.
Trump is the most unfit for office candidate in American history. Deal with it.
Opinions do vary. Deal with it.
Well, the argument goes like this:
Trump or Harris will win. Trump is the worst human in history and ANYONE the left runs is INFINITELY better than Trump no matter how sorry they may actually be.
Never anything about Harris, it is always 100%, Trump, Trump, Trump.
You seem to have received the message.
What a fucked-up, FALSE statement.
Please tell the truth on my seeds or leave.
Please stick to the topic--which reading the article reveals is Kamala Harris.
Complete waste of time pursuing that line of logical thinking. Some will never admit that or see it.
I swear this author must be a member here.
Now that the Great Debate (LMAO!) is over, is anyone more knowledgeable about Harris' plans besides just giving money away to first-time homebuyers and people who have kids?
Nope..
Harris isn't even knowledgeable about Harris' plans.
What is really sad is that her sick-o-phants don't even care, they only seem to care that she isn't Trump.
Not a ringing endorsement!
And they actually expect people not to laugh in their faces when they start in with the nonsense.
That’s okay. [deleted][✘]
Removed for context - sandy
As far as many Democrats are concerned, their interest in Kamala only goes as far as "Not Trump".
With no Trump, Kamala is expendable.
[✘]
Ahhh... election years. Every candidate in modern history starts off to appeal to the wings as they are the most active in primaries. Then they have to tack to the middle to attract the rest of the votes they need. The other side points out the hypocrisy while glossing over their own.
Kamala has backtracked on almost every single policy her ill-fated campaign said she held.
Gullible fools will buy it.
[deleted][✘]
For a year or more you and the rest of the right wingers here have assumed , and talked about it, that Harris is an idiot who cant string together two sentences without giggling and cackling. That all blew up in your face last night.
Yeah... so? So has Trump sometimes multiple times in a single day.
Q. How can you tell if a politician is lying?
A. Their lips are moving.
Harris is counting on people hating Trump more than they dislike her. It may work.
[deleted][✘]
She is going the Democratic route--"Not Trump" is what both her and Biden's campaigns were all about.
Can’t disagree with that and imo, many of those folks will be voting at cross purposes to their own best interests. Simply because they dislike Trump.
That still blows my mind. I’ll never get logic like that.
The Fed can only do so much to control the inflation that’s been seeded the last four years. Harris will put it over the top. Of that I have little doubt.
Her give-away programs will cost us all!
AT LEAST $200 BILLION for the homebuyer hand out.
And who knows how much for parents for childcare?
Bashing Trump doesn't enhance Harris anymore than these Harris bashing articles and comments enhance Trump. Harris is simply, in my opinion, the lesser of two evils.
Many people vote against their own best interests all the time for any variety of reasons. It's the nature of politics.
Again both candidates have espoused ideals that would exponentially expand spending. They are both populists...
And there is the problem with American voters.
Far too many are ALWAYS willing to settle for the lesser of two evils.
The parties will not change unless voters demand it.
Voting for the lesser of two evils plays right into the party's hands.
Voting for the lesser of two evils is shortsighted and unpatriotic to me.
Look where that strategy has landed us.
With two clowns.
Many of our friends on the left are too dim to make the connection.
On this, we disagree.
It's a result of the 2 party voting system, where tons of money is spent keeping the 2 parties in power. John Steward recently pointed out our modern Congress and SCOTUS when faced with having to define political corruption, rather than checking it there they continue to move the bar higher.
The parties will not change unless voters find a way to remove the cash. Every time someone wants to shine a light on dark money the politicians find a way to block it.
Voting for the greater of two evils isn't an option. As has been pointed out to you multiple times, not voting for one of the two big party candidates is akin to voting for the greater evil.
Your (and far too many others) way is to vote for what you consider the lesser of two evils.
See where we are?
How's that working out?
Keep on your merry way and you'll end up dead before you ever see any change besides the names.
Yeah. I get that. If we (all of us here) work better to keep the discourse civil and honest we can always agree to disagree and part as, if not friends, at least not enemies. It would help the partisans here to move the discussions from why x is bad to why x is the best choice. That's been difficult to do with the rise of populism. Populism sucks...
Kind of flies in the face of voting for the lesser of two evils. "Better than so-and-so" isn't exactly discussing why so-and-so is a better candidate.
As I've pointed out before you may get further with articles and posts of why I should vote for candidate X rather than why candidate Y is shitty. While I know you aren't a Trump fan, your constant stream of only articles bashing liberals looks hypocritical and doesn't support your assertion the two party system is bad. This isn't a accusation. It's a plea to participate in an honest discussion.
I'm aware and I don't like it any more than you do. The person I voted for in the primaries is not a candidate, so now I have to pivot to something and that's the best I can do. If you have a better option now would be the time to let the rest of us know.
But you'll go right along the whole time and end up voting for the lesser of two evils, and nothing will ever change as long as the majority just goes along with it like you do.
People unwilling to change themselves have little room for criticisms of how others vote.
It is an act of futility to wait until election day and then vote third party. This has been going on for over a century and no viable third party has ever emerged. Merely voting is not enough and it is flat out foolish to think it is given the facts.
To get a viable third party we need to have a strong initiative that well precedes election day with the following elements:
When Biden and Trump were running there was a historically great opportunity for a third party to emerge. Yet nothing happened, as usual, because the other above factors were missing.
So sure, it may make you feel good to vote third party, but that alone is demonstrably not going to do a damn thing. In the meantime, we face the possibility of a loose-cannon traitor and scoundrel securing the power of the presidency. Thus a use of one's vote that can indeed help make a difference is to vote against Trump and the best way to do so is to vote for Harris.
As a bonus, Harris is smart, organized, responsible, and presidential.
it makes me feel good to know I am not voting for one of the clowns.
Got enough folks willing to.
People who complain but won't do anything to change.
Equating Harris with Trump is a fundamental failure of analysis.
Trump is clearly a clown. Harris is clearly a normal, serious politician.
[deleted][✘]
Well, then you own the failure. I made no comparison, I simply stated they are both clowns.
Do you recognize my comment clearly states that?
Proving that one man's clown is another man's Chosen One.
She still has no clue about the border crisis her and Biden created and she pretty much avoided that during the debate. She knew she didn't have a leg to stand on where that was concerned so she veered away from it. Trump let her get under his skin causing him to lose the debate, Neither one had much substance to the issues they claimed to follow.
To be honest, I am not sure she has much of a clue about anything, really.
Her ascendance from a political pariah into the Chosen One was a thing to behold, though!
I'm not throwing my vote away in the chance it helps the worst person to ever sit in the Oval Office sit there again.
Are you not aware of the irony in that post?
I realize that. I also realize you have zero problems installing Harris.
Lots of folks talk about change, few follow through.
Compared to Trump I will sleep soundly if Harris wins. The country is still robust and humming along under 4 years of Uncle Joe. I expect much of the same under Harris.
Many of those few don't understand pragmatism either. I'm a libertarian at heart, but I can't get 3 people to make up their mind on a pizza order how would 300M people work together without rules compelling them to?
For fuck's 17% of the country make up their own facts and another 25% enable them because they have to stick it to the other side.
Of course you will.
I started with myself. If I am not willing to change how I vote, how can I ever expect anyone else to?
Some just go along complaining every election cycle but never vote differently.
Pissing upstream doesn't sound particularly smart either.
I suspect I will hear all of this again in 4 years.
Ho hum, SOSDD.
I think we can count on it.
Your definition of “humming along” is interested indeed.
I could add more negative news for everyday Americans that happened under Biden’s watch but it appears to be to deaf ears and blind eyes.
Dials monitoring the reaction of a Fox News focus group during Tuesday's presidential debate showed independent voters overlapping with Republicans in support of former President Trump's immigration policies.
Trump took aim at Vice President Kamala Harris during the ABC News Presidential Debate, blaming the Biden-Harris administration for "destroying the fabric of our country" with the influx of illegal immigration.
The former president blamed the administration for the rise in "migrant crime," a sentiment that seemingly resonated with not just Republicans, but a large number of independent respondents.
The focus group comprised seven Democrats, five independents and five Republicans, and was represented by blue, yellow and red lines, respectively. When Trump spoke of the rising crime at the hands of illegal immigrants, the yellow line monitoring the independent reaction rose drastically in Trump's favor, overlapping with the red Republican line.
Lee Carter, pollster and president of Maslansky + Partners, said she was shocked to see independent voters tracking with Republicans so closely on the issue.
"I was really, really surprised because the intensity of the independent support was there for Donald Trump and I didn't expect it," Carter said Wednesday on "The Faulkner Focus."
"Independents are tracking very much with Republicans. They're looking for a couple of things. They're looking for answers on immigration, they're looking for answers on the economy. They want to hear that things will get better for them and they also want change from what is happening right now," Carter continued. "One of the most important things they were looking for last night from Kamala Harris is how are you going to make it different?"
Independent voters surprise pollster with reactions to Trump's debate performance: 'Didn't expect it' | Fox News
There is hope for this country.