'There's Just No Value' in Speaking to The New York Times, Says Harris Campaign Manager
By: Charlie Nash (Mediaite)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Charlie NashDec 16th, 2024, 11:02 pm Twitter share button
Graeme Sloan/Sipa USA via AP Images
Rob Flaherty, the former deputy campaign manager for Vice President Kamala Harris's 2024 presidential campaign, claimed there was "just no value" in candidates speaking to mainstream newspapers like The New York Times or Washington Post.
During an interview Monday with Semafor media editor Max Tani about the Harris campaign's media strategy, Flaherty claimed, "There's just no value — with respect to my colleagues in the mainstream press — in a general election, to speaking to the New York Times or speaking to the Washington Post, because those [readers] are already with us."
As evidence for his argument, Flaherty recalled Harris's viral conversation with Fox News host Bret Baier.
"One of the most important moments of the campaign for the vice president was her interview with Bret Baier," he said. "That was a huge fundraising moment. It was a huge social moment."
Citing President-elect Donald Trump's "smart" campaign stunt serving burgers and french fries at a McDonald's drive-thru, Flaherty added, "I don't think TV is dead. It's still probably the most important thing, but it's the literal TV and what's on it that matters."
Flaherty also predicted that in the near-future, the Democratic Party's left and center-left base would start to drift away from the mainstream media.
"They're never going to not trust The New York Times, and they're never going to distrust the Washington Post," he acknowledged. "But I think that in a Trump era, you'll start to see frustrations with the mainstream media come to a boil. And I think there will be smart people who try to fill the gap — more individuals who create content on left and center-left messaging."
Tags:2024 ElectionKamala HarrisNew York TimesRob FlahertySemaforWashington Post Previous PostNext Post Previous PostNext Post Load Comments
Trolling, taunting, spamming, and off-topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that vote up their own comments, repeat comments, respond to themselves, or continue to disrupt the conversation risk having all their comments deleted. Please remember to quote the person(s) you are replying to preserve the continuity of this seed. Posting debunked lies will be subject to deletion
No Fascism References, Source Dissing.
Tags
Who is online
334 visitors
How totally arrogant and pompous can you get..................that attitude, concerning the rest of the country, got Trump elected.
You'll have to explain to me why you think it's arrogant and pompous. To me it's one less time I have to see her plastered across my news feed.
It's the "We don't need any help other than what they have already given as we have them locked up". That just may piss them off and squelch any favorable press they may have gotten going forward.
Do you think Harris would actually run again? She's done abysmally bad the first two times.... I don't think anything is going to help Harris. Were I advising them (and I most definitely don't want to) I'd say find a new person asap and start building their name recognition. The same old doesn't seem to cut it.
They need a name from and a true moderate message. Harris was trying to appease both the moderates and the left wing populists. That will never work.
So NYT and WaPo are actually the enemy for spreading her words. Got it. Guess that makes sense they don't need to talk to either of them
I didn't say that, nor does it sound like they said that. I think you are reading too much into what's going on here.
They said they have already reached those audiences and believe that demographic is solid Dem. You could be correct and it may be arrogant for them to think they do. They may also be correct. I don't know and I'm not making blind assumptions.
All I'm saying is that I don't think Harris is an effective politician and the less I hear about her, the better my day is.
She will likely try. Look at Pence. What kind of utter lunacy got into his head when he thought he has chance to prevail in 2024?
The Ds need to seriously work to put forth a youthful, energetic, charismatic, intelligent, experienced candidate with a message focused on the majority of the electorate. That means NOT trying to cater to the extremes (left or right).
I really like Pete Buttigieg but he is light on experience and I doubt our electorate will be able to get past his sexual orientation / lifestyle. We are still a very bigoted nation ... sorry to say.
But Pete seems to have the character, judgment, intelligence, youth, charisma, etc. that I personally favor in a PotUS. I would like to see him become a Governor. Now that he resides in Michigan, he might just have a shot. He had no shot in Indiana. After a successful governorship, he just might be ready to run for the big job.
In the meantime ... Josh Shapiro? Can our nation get past its bigotry to vote for a Jewish PotUS? He has the great qualities I like.
As for the GOP, I have written the party off. The GOP that I knew no longer exists and I do not know if or when it will ever get back to something that makes sense. Thus, I doubt we will see any GOP candidates that are free from the Trump MAGA stain.
And fail again like Pence.
I agree. I'm not certain there is one with enough name recognition right now. They need to start this spring or it's open for left wing populists like Federman and AOC to start filling in that gap (shudder).
Me too. I doubt we'll ever see him in the WH though.
Perhaps. Maybe with a great team behind him he might have a shot.
I'm waiting to see what happens up to and through the midterm election. Will the Trump and the GoP push too hard and lose both chambers? If it's bad enough they will lose their donors and that's the only way they will make a change.
She is dense enough to not get the message the people sent her TWICE.
But she’s so intelligent and presidential.
Yes, but for very different reasons.
In all, we seem to see things the same way. Hopefully we see a midterm crash for the MAGA-infected GOP. The sooner it fails, the sooner it can start rebuilding into a respectable party. At this stage, however, I really wonder if I will ever see that happen.
Amazing that you have the temerity to call Harris dense. To just ignore her resume and deem her dense is absurd.
Yet again, another absurd claim that Harris is not presidential and not intelligent. How is it possible to NOT compare her to Trump when you make these ridiculous assertions? Did you watch the debate? That was Harris v Trump, person to person. Wit against wit. Demeanor against demeanor.
Just amazing.
Who knows?
Biden ran for president three times and the third was the charm, only because many Americans did not vote for him because they thought he would be the best candidate, but because he was not Trump.
Harris may think her third time charm is coming up, but I think the American people are far smarter than to vote the DEI hire.
You said that about Harris over and over the past election......
And look what they got you.
The facts do not change as a result of losing the election.
What do you think the Ds should do then ... focus on the minority of the electorate? Run an old individual again? Run someone with low energy, who is uncharismatic, stupid and inexperienced?
How about someone that is just likeable?
“Yet again, another absurd claim that Harris is not presidential and not intelligent.
I find it absurdly stupid that anyone would think she is. Amazing, just amazing.
this article is about harris, not trump. If you want to compare and contrast the two you should start your own article.
No one likes Trump
Opinions do vary...
How do you come to the conclusion that someone earning their J.D. and passing the California bar (one of the most difficult in the nation) is not intelligent? And that was just the beginning of her career. A successful prosecuting attorney who became DA of SF and then twice elected AG of California, then elected Senator for California, then elected as VP is not intelligent. How do you measure intelligence?
As for being presidential, what is your criteria? Do you consider Trump to be presidential? How? What are the defining characteristics of presidential behavior?
Trump and Harris were the two candidates for PotUS. When speaking of either one in terms of the campaign comparing one to the other cannot be deemed off limits.
Especially when the seed mentions Trump:
Look at how she acts. Look at how she bursts into fits of cackling, some of those fits at very inappropriate times. Look at some of her responses to simple questions. Look at how she folds when she’s put on the spot. Look at her first campaign for president, it was a completely chaotic disaster. Her second try was more of the same. Look at what she did as vp, she was the border czar and the border was a disaster. What else did biden task her with? For the most part they hid her away because she was an embarrassment.
being educated is not the same as being intelligent.
You have seen her burst into fits of cackling?? This is some kind of routine occurrence in your fantasy? Apparently you did not watch her during the campaign. Your fantasy does not match reality ... at all.
So you are trying to claim that on balance, she predominantly failed to answer simple questions (and thus implicitly fails even more on complex questions). She produced a poor answer on the View. Yet if you actually observed her, she gave good answers (as good as political answers are) most of the time. A very good place to evaluate Harris is on the debate. She had no notes, she did not know the questions ahead of time. Evaluate her objectively and you would be hard pressed to make a factual case that she is not intelligent and well-prepared. In contrast, compare her to Trump in that same debate.
But you will never do that.
Look at how she predominantly did NOT fold when put on the spot. Again, you seem to be oblivious to her opponent. If you are going to claim she is unintelligent as a presidential candidate then you would necessarily need to make the case that Trump was intelligent. So if you actually believe that Trump did not routinely give stupid answers (and deflections) to normal questions then you have not paid any attention really to what took place.
Do you think Trump's plan to generate revenue to pay for his promises via excessive tariffs shows intelligence? Do you recognize that tariffs (especially excessive tariffs) will raise prices on US consumers (that includes you)? Is that smart ... to gratuitously engage in unnecessary trade wars only to wind up raising prices when the electorate predominantly found high prices to be their key issue?
A lot of people have failed in their campaigns for PotUS. Not securing the nomination does not mean 'completely chaotic disaster'. Get a grip.
All you do is make wild claims ... and apparently facts do not matter. Her second campaign was very organized and she managed to rally a ton of support in a very short time under trying conditions. She lost, but her loss was the second most narrow defeat since Gore.
She was not the border czar. She was tasked to determine how to systemically dissuade people from trying to illegally enter our nation. Her task was big picture strategic. That said, I am critical of the Biden administration for not acting on the border and letting it become a campaign issue. But you are just engaging in surface level partisan talking points.
And you end with another assertion devoid of fact.
“You have seen her burst into fits of cackling??”
Sure have, all one has to do is watch some videos of her to see that’s reality. The “fantasy” is denying that fact. Of course one would have to then admit they were wrong, which for some is an impossible task.
”So you are trying to claim that on balance, she predominantly failed to answer simple questions”
yes, for example, how will she turn the economy around. She begins with her middle class upbringing and ends up talking about her neighbors lawns.
”A very good place to evaluate Harris is on the debate. She had no notes, she did not know the questions ahead of time.”
and you know this how? Let’s see the proof. We all know clinton had info on what would be asked ahead of time but somehow the dem party and their msm affiliates decided not to do the same this time? There is good reason to doubt your claim.
again, trump is not the topic. I suggest you start your own article if you want trump to be the topic.
“A lot of people have failed in their campaigns for PotUS. Not securing the nomination does not mean 'completely chaotic disaster'. Get a grip.”
she not only did not secure the nomination, she received as many electoral votes as you and i. She was the first top tier candidate to drop out. Her management style was chaotic and abusive resulting in a high turn over rate, then donations to her campaign dried up. Only those without a grip cannot see that.
”Her second campaign was very organized and she managed to rally a ton of support in a very short time under trying conditions.”
is that why she spent over one billion dollars and still ended up being 20 million in debt? Is that why she lost a lot of union support? Is that why she lost ground with the working class and minorities? She was out of touch with reality. To say she ran an “organized” campaign is a “wild claim” devoid of facts.
“She was not the border czar. She was tasked to determine how to systemically dissuade people from trying to illegally enter our nation.”
Lol, call it whatever you want, she failed miserably.
post 1.1.22 is completely devoid of fact. It’s like watching an episode of msnbc, or cnn.
There are many videos of Harris. You merely claim that she bursts into cackling yet you offer nothing other than your claim.
First of all, the economy is in great shape. The GDP is great, oil production is great, unemployment is low, and the bell weather of the economy (the stock market) was breaking new records. What was not great were two things: prices and interest rate. Interest rates have been dropping and those are mostly a function of the Fed (not the PotUS). So the key factor left was prices. Harris stated that she would go after price gouging. That is about all she honestly could do. A PotUS cannot control prices in a market economy.
So your criticism is fundamentally flawed in that the economy need not be turned around since it was already healthy. The part that was not good (prices) cannot be fixed by the PotUS. So Harris gave a reasonable answer. Trump, in contrast, simply lied. Trump promised the moon. Lying is easy.
You need me to prove that Harris did not have the debate questions ahead of time? Talk about deflection. Instead of running off into a truly stupid conspiracy theory deal with the facts. You can see the demeanor, intelligence, ability to communicate, knowledge, etc. on display directly comparing Harris with Trump in a formal debate. Yet you cannot formulate an argument ... instead you leap into conspiracy theory. See, it is things like this that are so amazing. You clearly know that you cannot possibly be honest about the debate between Trump and Harris so instead of acknowledging the substantial evidence that (in particular, when compared to Trump) Harris is presidential, organized, intelligent, knowledgeable, and articulate.
Your deflection illustrates the utter failure of your argument.
Whining yet again about comparison to Trump (when the comparison is key to the debate) in a seed where Trump is mentioned is just another indication that you have no argument.
Are you aware that the majority of presidential candidates do not secure the nomination and earn few to no delegates (not electoral votes). Your 'argument' continues to flounder.
Her campaign was clearly organized. It went from nothing to almost winning in 100 days. You saw a strategy executed with rallies attracting large crowds, a full-fledge advertising campaign, etc. All that one would expect from a campaign that had ensued for months. The fact that she lost does not mean that her campaign was not organized. You continue to ignore reality and simply make negative claims.
The reply was devoid of an argument, ignored actual facts, conflated terms, and basically was a rather pathetic denial.
IMO anyone who objectively watches this debate and deems Harris unintelligent, cackling, unpresidential, stupid, etc. is consumed by confirmation bias.
Like usual, we disagree. There is no point in continuing. I will not change your mind and you will not change mine. One thing is certain, more Americans agree with my assessment than yours.
No, more of the electorate voted for Trump than Harris (by a slim margin).
You are simply declaring that those who voted for Trump all think (in direct contrast to the facts ... and as seen so clearly in the debate) that Harris is NOT: intelligent, experienced, presidential, rational, youthful, and energetic.
One can hypothesize why she lost (e.g. did not deliver the right message), but to deny personal qualities demonstrated clearly and repeatedly on videos that we can all observe and analyze ... many times during a 100 day intense period ... is inexcusable.
Apparently 77 million clear thinking Americans do
So how many times does it take her to realize the people don't want her?
Lol, you act as though your OPINIONS are facts. They are not. They are merely opinions, opinions not shared by the majority of voters.
I have supported my assessment with facts. The fact that she lost the election does NOT mean that the electorate believes Harris is not intelligent, experienced, presidential, rational, youthful, and energetic. Rather, it means (at least) that they believed (stupidly) that Trump would make life better for them.
Watch the debate. That is a perfect 1½ hour comparison of Trump and Harris; side-by-side, in debate. Anyone who watched that debate and walked away with the impression that (relative to Trump) Harris is not intelligent, experienced, presidential, rational, youthful, and energetic is, IMO, beyond reason.
You can call them facts if you want, but they are merely opinions.
It is obvious that you refuse to acknowledge the facts I presented even when illustrated so well in the debate.
No, it’s obvious that i see your “facts” as opinions.
The Dems have pretty much lost the working class and mainstream Americans, including large numbers of minorities and young people. The left gave in to the progressive wackos and now they are paying the price. It's gonna take a whole lot of soul searching and deep reflection of what they really stand for going forward. Having drag queens read stories to minor children and defending men pretending to be women is just one of the many issues that made normal people pull away and helped Trump win.
They are the party that caters to the whims and and neuroses of crazy rich people.