Working all day on a script and staying pretty much off the web, I missed the news that Joe Biden had announced Kamala Harris would be his running mate. I figured it out when I looked at my iPhone and a message popped up that Tucker Carlson had delivered a scathing attack on the personal integrity of Kamala Harris.
So natch, I thought, "Biden must have announced she's his running mate." It could have just been a rumor at that point but I didn't think Tucker Carlson would waste a perfectly-good scathing attack on someone's personal integrity on a rumor. He might then have to deliver another scathing attack on the personal integrity of the real choice.
Remember when elections were about explaining why your opponent's plans for the country were wrong? Now you just say that their plans would completely destroy America (and maybe the planet) and every single thing folks care about — motherhood, religion, free speech, Netflix, chocolate fudge sundaes, etc. — and you spend the rest of the time talking about how corrupt and dishonest they are.
Senator Harris seems like a decent choice to me. So did most of the other names that were mentioned. I think this election is going to come down to whether voters want Trump or Not Trump and the Democratic ticket is just as Not Trump as it was without her. But she's a good speaker and because she's from California, her seat would remain with the party. Frankly, I can't think of anyone Biden could have picked who would have moved many votes. Maybe Dr. Fauci.
I wonder if there even are many left that are movable. The press keeps posting these comparisons of where Biden is in the polls as compared to Hillary Clinton four years ago. It just feels to me like it's a different kind of election. The people who are dead-set on voting for Trump are deader-set this time than last time. The folks who think he's been the worst president ever are surer of that than the ones four years ago who thought he would be.
One thought about the debates: It looks like they're going to be with the candidates and questioners in separate locations all on-screen in little boxes like a Cable News roundtable. They'll probably have to draw up special rules to cover this format and wouldn't it be interesting if it went like this…?
- Candidate A is asked a question by the interrogators. Candidate A gets two minutes to respond during which Candidate B's microphone is shut off so he can't interrupt or talk over his opponent.
- Candidate B then gets two minutes to rebut, during which Candidate A's mike is muted.
- Then there's two minutes when both microphones are on and they can talk back and forth as much as they like.
In the Trump/Hillary debates, Trump liked to talk over her, say things like "Wrong!" before she'd finished the sentence, and just generally try to knock her off each message. Might be interesting to see neither guy be allowed to do that and the other allowed to finish a complete thought. This is even assuming there even are debates and that either man has a complete thought. With these guys, who knows?