The Munk Debates Podcast - Be it Resolved, Kamala Harris is the Democrats' best hope to defeat Donald Trump

Episode Date: August 13, 2024

Within hours of Joe Biden’s announcement that he was bowing out of the presidential race Kamala Harris became the presumptive Democratic nominee. With the full weight of the Democratic party behind her and no opposition to speak of, VP Harris has been awarded the top ticket that proved so elusive to her four years ago. To her supporters, she is uniquely qualified to beat President Trump in November. Her prosecutorial debate skills, experience in the White House, and diverse background has excited voters and attracted moderates who were growing tired of Joe Biden. To her detractors, she is the same Kamala who flamed out early in the 2020 Democratic primaries, was a deeply unpopular Vice President, has an awkward stage presence, no real policy platform, and is too liberal to appeal to swing voters. In anointing Kamala Harris without any real contest, they argue, the DNC has hitched their wagon to an untested candidate who will all but guarantee a Donald Trump victory in November. Arguing in favour of the resolution is Cheri Jacobus, a nationally-recognized political strategist, pundit and writer whose podcast, Politics with Cheri Jacobus, covers all the news coming out of Washington. Arguing against the resolution is Elizabeth Nolan Brown, the Senior Editor of Reason Magazine.   The host of this Munk Debates podcast episode is Rudyard Griffiths. Tweet your comments about this episode to @munkdebate or comment on our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/munkdebates/ To sign up for a weekly email reminder for this podcast, send an email to [e-mail].   To support civil and substantive debate on the big questions of the day, consider becoming a Munk Member at https://munkdebates.com/membership Members receive access to our 15+ year library of great debates in HD video, a free Munk Debates book, newsletter and ticketing privileges at our live events. This podcast is a project of the Munk Debates, a Canadian charitable organization dedicated to fostering civil and substantive public dialogue - https://munkdebates.com/ Senior Producer: Ricki Gurwitz Editor: Kieran LynchBecome a Munk Donor ($50 annually) to get 72-hour advanced access to the full length editions of Friday Focus and Munk Dialogues. Go to www.munkdebates.com to sign up. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

You don't help the poor by making everybody poorer. The media has a frame, and the frame is Israel is the oppressor, and the Palestinians are the oppressed. I shouldn't be forced to acknowledge my privilege unless I desire for that to be part of my interaction with somebody else. What I know to be true and what all of my fellow Gen Z know to be true is that this is the most talented generation yet. With respect to every indicia of disadvantage, there is still a racial hierarch. And though I am, of course, in Anglo. I'm certainly not a fucking Saxon. Welcome to the Monk Debates.

Every episode we provide you with a civil and substantive debate on the big issue of the day. Our goal with each and every program of the Monk Debates is to arm you with enough information to make up your own mind. Today's debate, be it resolved. Kamala Harris is the Democrats' best hope to defeat Donald Trump. And just last night, the delegates to the Democrats, National Convention finished voting.

And so I stand before you today to proudly announce I am now officially the Democratic nominee. With the full weight of the Democratic Party behind her and no opposition to speak of, Vice President Kamala Harris has been awarded the top slot on the DNC ticket going into the final 100 days of the historic U.S. race for the presidency. To her supporters, she is uniquely qualified to beat Donald Trump in November. Her prosecutorial debate skills, wide experience in the White House and diverse background has excited American voters and attracted moderates back into the party who were growing tired of a tired Joe Biden. To her detractors, however, she's the same Kamala Harris who flamed out early in the 2020 Democratic primaries, was a deeply unpopular vice president. It has an awkward stage present and frankly is too liberal to appeal to many American swing voters.

And her recycled slogans and political rhetoric have become easy fodder for attack ads. I can imagine what can be and be unburdened by what has been, you know? What can be unburdened by what has been? What can be unburdened by what has been? What can be? unburdened by what has been. In anointing Kamala Harris without any real contest, her detractors argue that the DNC has hitched their wagon

to an untested, unproven candidate. Once the shine wears off, and her detractors think it will sooner or not later, she will be exposed as an unelectable politician who will not be able to realistically challenge the Donald Trump juggernaut. On this installment of the Monk Debates podcast, we challenge the essence of these arguments by debating the motion, be it resolved. Kamala Harris is the Democrats' best hope to defeat Donald Trump.

Arguing in favor of the resolution is Sherry Jacobus, a nationally recognized political strategist, pundit, and writer whose podcast, politics with Sherry Jacobus covers all the important news coming out of Washington, D.C. You can find that podcast right now on Patreon. arguing against the resolution is Elizabeth Nolan Brown, a senior editor at Reason Magazine. Sherry, Elizabeth, welcome to the Monk Debates. Hello, thanks for having us. Hi, thanks for having us. Timely debate today. Be it resolved.

Kamala Harris is the Democrats' best hope for defeating Donald Trump. Sherry, you're arguing in favor of today's resolution. So let's put two minutes on the proverbial show clock and turn the program over to you. I think Kamala Harris is the best hope. I think she's been the best hope for a while, aside from the fact that she's well known as the vice president to one of the best presidents in our lifetimes, in my lifetime, who is now even more beloved by his party and the country, I would say, since he decided to step aside. She's part of a team. She's not just standing alone. On her own right, she's become well-known and was a popular figure when he chose her for a very good

reason to be his vice president four years ago. Vice presidents tend to be in the background. They are a partner to the president, but also their chief staffer. She understood the assignment, having her own persona, her own agenda as she came up through the ranks, through being an elected official in California, as AG being a former prosecutor, serving on the Senate Intelligence committee and running for president on her own. She knew the assignment. She did it well, and she learned a lot from the current president. So she's not standing there alone. This is a continuation, if you will, of a popular president's presidency. There are some differences which will come into play, but she understands where the country is right now. She understands

what the electorate needs and wants. She has a good ear for this, which she has proven as vice president and on the campaign trail, I would say. So we've seen her evolve and grow. Aside from this, just being a transformational figure, shattering this glass ceiling that women in this country have waited for for such a very long time is not insignificant. And she understands her role there, again, breaking new ground as a leader. So there are many qualities to her, which make her the best candidate, the best put possible candidate to defeat Donald Trump, and to be a very good president after that. Thank you, Sherry. You're listening to our debate today, be it resolved Kamala Harris as the Democrats' best hope to defeat Donald Trump. Elizabeth,

you're arguing against the motion, so your opportunity now for an opening statement. Put another two minutes on the show clock and turn our proverbial microphone over to you. So I think there's kind of two distinct questions here. And is it, you know, was Harris the best choice for the Democrats? And is she the best person to beat Donald Trump? To the first question, I think maybe the answer is yes, because essentially the Democrats didn't really have a choice. She was pretty much in the position to do this. You know, if they had not chosen Harris, it may have sort of just caused such a disruption in the parties, you know, functioning because, you know, to not choose the woman who is currently serving as VP, the woman of color who is currently serving as VP would have just not gone

over well with such a large portion of the Democratic base and the Democratic donor base, especially, that it could have just sort of totally disraeled momentum. So I think maybe, you know, did Democrats have to choose Harris this round? Yes. Is she the best one to beat Trump, though, I think is a different question because, you know, Harris really has no record of expanding the Democratic base beyond people who are going to vote Democrat anyways. She's performed pretty poorly in past campaigns, especially, you know, her past, like the only time she had a sort of general election campaign in California when she was running for AG. Her presidential campaign in 2020, she kind of came in with all this hype and then sort of that very quickly fizzled due to a lot of gaffes and a lot of dysfunction in her staff and things like that. So she doesn't have a great track record here. She's also not a terribly sort of inspiring communicator. I don't think that she has kind of what Barack Obama had or, you know, I kind of hate to say it, but what Donald Trump has.

for his base. You know, she doesn't have that sort of ability to rally new people to the party, people who maybe aren't already interested in politics or already interested in democratic politics specifically. And neither does she have this sort of so much charisma that it transcends policy and it doesn't matter what her policy positions are, which brings me to sort of the last thing that I think is going to be bad for her, which is that, you know, one, she's inheriting a lot of the negatives associated with the Biden administration, be that, you know, the border policy, be that the inflation. economic situation. And also she's, you know, open to accusations that she sort of knew what was going on with Biden cognitively and helped cover that up, which I think could really hurt her.

And then when we talk about her own policy positions, she's got a really mixed record. She's often, you know, talked one thing and then walked the other. She's got a huge history of sort of flip-flopping on issues, sort of appearing inauthentic or phony because she's willing to go back and forth and back and forth on what she believes or say she believes one thing, but then do another thing once she's in office. And also, Also, a lot of her past positions, you know, when she was Attorney General of California and when she was district attorney in San Francisco were really quite controversial. She wasn't just tough on crime, which is, you know, what they're kind of trying to sell it as now. But she wasn't just tough on crime in a conventional way.

She was tough on crime in a way that offends sort of basic American sensibilities of justice in terms of sort of going to bat for dirty prosecutors and sort of not, you know, sticking up for police accountability in terms of wanting to, you know, send the parents of truant children to school. So I just think she's got a lot of baggage that should the Trump campaign effectively mobilize it could really hurt her amongst sort of normies and independence and moderate voters. Thank you so much, Elizabeth. Okay, now a chance for rebuttal, an opportunity for you to both react to what you've just heard. So Sherry, you're up first. What's your response to Elizabeth's opening statement? Well, I think given the current climate and given the legal issues with Donald Trump,

the prosecutor versus the felon is actually the perfect message. So if there's going to be some sort of debate about was she too tough on crime or in the wrong way, when she was AG, California, that is actually something that deptails, I think, rather well into her current image and messaging of being tough on Donald Trump. Now, in a recent rally when there were cries of lock him up, lock him up, she immediately shut that down. And she said we will let the courts decide that, the proper process. are taking care of that, we are going to defeat him. And if you recall, in the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, she almost made him cry deservedly so.

She was also very tough on Trump AG Bill Barr and had him stammering around under questioning. So this is the type of thing that Democrats and many independents and never Trump Republicans have been waiting for who have been disappointed in the Biden choice for AG in Merritt Garland. So they do see in Kamala Harris somebody who can take this fight to Donald Trump. So that image, I think, is helping her very, very much. It's a positive for her. Thank you, Sherry.

Okay, Elizabeth, your chance you can react to what you've just heard from Sherry. Take up her opening statement. The floor is yours. Yeah, I think, you know, what Harris is strongest when she's making the case against Donald. Trump. But part of the problem is, you know, as a prosecutor, you're on very friendly turf. Prosecutors sort of have scripted, you know, talks that they're giving. They have a very friendly audience in terms of judges and other prosecutors and lawyers. So they don't really have a lot of training at people really pushing back against them too hard. And I think that's what we've seen

with Harris. She's good when she's talking to other Democrats or maybe people who are already against Trump about why Donald Trump is bad. But she's not as good at articulating her own vision for how things should be. And I think we saw this a lot. during her 2020 presidential campaign where, you know, she would get up there and she was kind of doing the tough, like I'm a prosecutor, I'm going to prosecute the case

against Donald Trump back then too. And she came across very strong on that. And then when called out on her own record by Biden at the time even, by Tulsi Gabbard, by moderators, by various people, she was really hard pressed to adequately explain either some of her own past actions or some of her own flip-flops on issues

and things like Medicare for all, things like, you know, marijuana legalization or, you know, criminalizing America want to users. She really sort of has traditionally fallen apart when press to sort of defend her record or really sort of paint a positive vision for the future instead of just not being Donald Trump. Wow, you guys are right to time. I love it. We're getting a ton of content in here. Great analysis, great insights. Well, let me join the conversation with some thoughts that could be on the minds of our listeners tuning into this excellent debate. And let me come to you first, Sherry.

I think one question people are wondering is why this sudden, I don't know, what you might call it, resurrection, reversal of the narrative around the vice president. This was a vice president who seemed to have been widely relegated by the White House over the last two years, taken off center stage compared to the early months and first year of the Biden presidency. She's someone that the media seemed to have largely written off as an effective political leader. Flash forward just a few weeks, and suddenly we have someone of presidential timber, ready to lead the United States, lead the free world. What's the story here, Sherry, that is credible and convincing to a skeptical listener who's just wondering about this remarkable transformation of Camilla Harris? Well, historically, that is pretty much what happens with all vice presidents.

It's been famous. He said that the vice presidency is worth a bucket of warm spit, although I think they might have used another word. So it's a little bit difficult. Al Gore went through this. You know, Mike Pence went through this. Every vice president goes through this. They are there.

They're strong in the beginning. You want to put them out front because you chose this person for a reason so that they can be ready on day one. What we now know, what we're learning, because we're paying attention more and because more is being reported about her is that the vice president was in the situation room and is in the situation room with the president on a regular basis. She actually is there for the daily briefings where we know that Donald Trump didn't even take his daily briefings. She has traveled to 21 countries. So she's been a valuable person. I would say that as a long-time political staffer and advisor and strategist for candidates and for campaigns,

they played it just right. We now know that she was in the room a lot when it mattered and that she was loyal and smart and valuable. And she was not showboating. So I think that is the role of the vice president, which is why the current president was so comfortable endorsing her out of the gate when he decided to step aside. He has confidence in her. It is up to her and the campaign to now go out there and show why he has this confidence in her. So far, seems to be going pretty well. Because as we find out new information about her, or information that was reported, but we just didn't pay attention to it, we're finding out that she was

that great, number one, best staffer, that partner. She was a good, number one best staffer, that partner. She was a somebody out there with her obvious own agenda trying to get ahead. And that is going to work to her favor, I think, quite well. Elizabeth, let's get your reaction to that same line of questioning. It is remarkable at the extent to which her candidate seems within the Democratic Party, certainly, and many of its voters, to be enthusiastically embraced. She's energizing crowds. She's galvanized social and traditional media. Maybe this was, simply great timing, a great choice, a great opportunity that the party had, to its detriment, possibly ignored or downplayed over the four years of the Biden presidency, that being

Kamala Harris's potential to be his successor and a viable challenger to Donald Trump. I think a lot of that is just sort of the circumstances under which we find her as the nominee. I mean, people were feeling, Democrats were feeling so dejected by the, the idea of Biden towards the end of this. And I think, you know, didn't really know what to do, didn't feel like, you know, the polls kept getting worse and worse for him. They kept feeling like, oh, no, there's no way we're going to beat Trump. And then all of a sudden, it's, you know, breathe some fresh life into the possibility of this campaign when Democrats way. So I think people are understandably very excited to not have Biden be the nominee anymore, to have a fresh start,

to have someone new. And so, you know, on the one level, it's not even about Harris. It's just about, hey, we have a fresh start. But, of course, it is about Harris, too. I mean, she is someone that superficially, it's really easy to get behind, you know. She's got this sort of this great look. She's got this great energy. There's the fact that she's a woman. There's a fact that she would be the first black woman president, the first Asian president. There's a lot that can really excite people about her.

So it's easy to see why, you know, on this superficial level, people are very excited about that. And then lastly, it's kind of easy to see why young people are excited too because, you know, Biden, for whatever he was or wasn't, he's not really an exciting president. You don't look at him, especially if you're a very young person and think, like, wow, that's someone that I'm like, you know, really going to go out there and rally for. Whereas I think for young people who are coming in who maybe don't know a whole lot about Harris especially, she's just sort of this figure that, you know, seems like someone they could really get behind. And also, she's sort of cultivated because she hasn't really been in the spotlight as VP, because like Sherry said, she hasn't really been, you know, trying to steal the spotlight. She's sort of cultivated this sort of wacky ant energy, as I've seen people think that, you know, Gen Z thinks of her as this sort of wacky aunt, you know, she's sort of. of gets out there and she sort of says some things that are a little bit esoteric and a little bit word salady, but also sort of, you know, funny. And so I think she's really sort of cultivated this

image that suddenly, you know, blends itself to memes, lends itself to people on social media, getting very excited. And all of this explains why everyone has sort of been on this sort of sugar high about her since she took over from Biden. I think the question is whether that will last, because, you know, a lot of that is stuff that, you know, memes and sort of excitement around her sort of image are not going to carry us for the next few months. They are not going to appeal to people who are not extremely online or already very much in the Democratic camp. And also we've seen this before with Harris, especially during the 2020 campaign of hers, where she also had this treatment when she first started. She was the top tier candidate. She had people very enthusiastic

about her candidacy. And then within a few months, she was down at the very bottom tier of the candidate. She was polling at 3% when she left the Democratic primary. So I think, think that it really remains to be seen whether any of this energy can be sustained. Thank you, Elizabeth. Great analysis and insights from you both listeners. You're tuning into our very topical debate today, be it resolved Kamala Harris is the Democrats' best hope for defeating Donald Trump. Sherry to come back to you as the proverbial defender of the Harris viability as a as that contender to defeat. Trump. Let's take up another question probably that audience members have been thinking about,

which is the extent to which Kamala Harris is seemingly running a cautious campaign at this point. Not a lot of sit-down interviews, not a lot of sustained exposure to the press outside of rallies and other more kind of scripted events. Some people, again, criticizing this, indicating that it seems to be a repeat, possibly of a Biden-era strategy, of keeping the candidate in the proverbial basement. What's your take on this? Does this point to a potential weakness of Kamala Harris, that maybe she's not ready for the full glare, the Kleglites of a billion-dollar-plus presidential campaign? Absolutely not. I disagree with that wholeheartedly, and here's why. The media are the ones that basically created Donald Trump because they loved these rallies. They loved the drama. They loved to

see this great populism, even if a lot of the people there had to be paid, you know, found on Craigslist to do so. So the media, the media kind of set the tone on this. Also, Kamala Harris has been a known quantity for a long time and has many sit-down interviews. Because we have this abbreviated campaign cycle, because she understands the assignment, which is to get people energized after, you know, as it's been noted, there was people were feeling very depressed at how Joe Biden was pushed aside and really thought that this was a bad thing and a bad time. Kamala Harris effectively went out there and said, yes, it's bad, but we are going to make lemonade out of these lemons. And she's done that. And you do that by energizing and exciting Democrats and others, which she has done.

She has won back over, taken. You know, Donald Trump was getting part of the black vote. That has been erased. He has collapsed. It's gone to her. She's winning back. Independence. They were neck and neck. That is collapsed for him.

He has spent a lot of time hiding out a full week without any events. He doesn't quite know how to handle this. Kamala Harris had the honeymoon, which could have been a horrible depressing time. Then she chose her vice president, an excellent pick showing that she knows what she's doing. She understands the assignment. She understands the American people. people. That gives her a bump. Then she's got the convention, another bump. It's going to be very difficult for Donald Trump to close the gap. She's now opened up a good three points nationally on the polls.

We have Larry Sabato now has changed the ratings on three states, Minnesota from from Lean Democrat to Likely Democrat, New Hampshire, from Lean Democrat to likely Democrat, Georgia, from Lean Republican to a toss-up. And on and on and on it goes. We've got this in Nevada. We've got this in Nevada. We've got this, you know, in places it's not supposed to happen. So she understands the assignment. She's got excellent judgment. And she is showing people why the president endorsed her rather than saying have, just have this open convention. She's doing an excellent job. Thank you, Sherry. Elizabeth, way in here. What do you see as the potential tactical? Maybe you think there's strategic kind of weaknesses of Kamala Harris as a candidate.

And do you think we're right to interpret any kind of warning signs here in terms of the extent to which the campaign to date has been quite traditional, quite scripted, quite kind of buttoned down? I mean, I almost think that's probably better for her because, again, like she has not, she traditionally has not done terribly well under pressure or when sort of faced with a hostile audience. You know, there's people saying like Trump is afraid to debate her and he may well be. But also, I don't, I'm not confident that she would hold up terribly well under some lines of sort of questioning or some lines of debate from Trump either because she, you know, she gets a little defensive. She gets flustered when pressed on these sorts of things. And so I think, you know, her sort of being out there and just being able to sort of rally the Democratic base has worked out really well for her. Her getting pressed more will not. And, you know, I don't, I don't know what the Trump.

campaign is going to do also. So far, their lines of attack have been really bad. So I mean, that's the one thing I think that's just sort of astonishment. It's like maybe, maybe she does have this because if they're just going to keep being like, what's a biracial person? I mean, that's, that's a terrible argument. But there are a lot of things that they could hit her on that I think could, you know, really, you know, cost her voters and especially the sort of, you know, swing voter she needs in places like Wisconsin and another in Pennsylvania and various swing states. And, you know, this is things like her having a record and, you know, this is independent body. that said it as her being one of the very most liberal people in the Senate while she was there

during her term, her sort of support for things like Medicare for all, her support for a lot of criminal justice policies that she actually didn't support during her time in office. You know, she actually was a more conservative prosecutor as far as Democrats go when she was in California. But then during her 2020 campaign, she wanted to sort of, I think, get in on the whole vibe of the moment of being all for criminal justice reform and things like that. So she sort of talked more radical than she was, which actually gives them a chance to hit her on both ends. You know, they can hit her for her actual record and say she was too tough on crime, or they can hit her for these statements she made in 2020 and say she's too radical when it comes to criminal justice issues.

So I think, you know, there's just, there's a lot of room if the Trump campaign gets its acts together to actually hit her in ways that could be very bad for her amongst these sort of moderate Midwestern swing voters that she needs. Hi, Rudyard Griffiths here, the executive director of the Monk Debates. Well, if you're enjoying the kind of civil and substantive conversations that we have at the debates, where we're really trying to get at the big issues and ideas that are driving the public conversation, I want to urge you to check out the hub. The Hub is Canada's fastest growing digital and news outlet. And like the Monk Debates, it's focused on those important conversations and bringing them to you in ways that are enlightening, enriching,

and again, focused on civility above all. You can check out the hub right now at triple w the hub.ca, or open your favorite podcast app and type in The Hub Canada. You'll go to the Hub's channel and see all kinds of great interviews, roundtables, discussions with thought leaders

from around the world. So, Monk Debate Community, check out the hub. We think you'll like what you're see, listen, read, and hear. Do that right now at triple-w the hub.ca. Now let's get back to our monk debates program. You're tuning into our debate today on an important aspect of the upcoming U.S. election.

Our motion before the proverbial house, be it resolved, Kamala Harris, is the Democrats' best hope for defeating Donald Trump. As we move into the final moments of this debate, Sherry, I want to come back to you and just go a little bit deeper here, push a little bit further on the electability question. You know as a political expert that this is going to come down to a handful of states, a handful of swing states, potentially 70,000, 100,000 voters who may decide the outcome of what could be yet again,

a very close election. We know that group of voters, that 75 to 100,000 people are going to be predominantly white. Many of them will be male. many of them will be working class, a blue collar, probably on balance. There's longstanding systemic racism and sexism in American society. There's a bit of that here too in Canada also, not necessarily just throwing stones from a glass house. But how does that play into her candidacy as a woman of color, as someone who had a career, a political career that began on one of America's two coasts. In this case, the city of San Francisco as district attorney. Probably for some of our listeners, Sherry, Kamala Harris seems a long, long way away from

these key voters that she's going to need to reach over what is now less than 100 days until the election. Well, yes, I mean, she's been called the left coast liberal because she's from San Francisco. But once one gets into office, obviously they govern differently, slightly differently, when you have to work with a Congress, the House. House and the Senate, and when your constituency is now a national constituency instead of just one state, she's effectively, I think, done that in terms of her image as vice president and certainly during this campaign. However, her vice presidential pick is key. And in Tim Walls, Governor of Minnesota, she has found that guy that balances out what people might look at as the negative parts of her

brand of liberalism. And he's this Midwestern, solid farmers type of guy, also liberal. You know, liberal, but in a good way. And I do think that we are about to have, we're going to see a real political real alignment in this country because Trump and MAGA have redefined what conservatives are and what Republicans are. So this leaves the whole populist thing, kind of to the Democrats at this point, which Kamala Harris has, I think, effectively done. If you look at the campaign rally cry, the big one the other day in Wisconsin, they were saying, this is what democracy looks like. And the crowd was screaming that. This is a democracy, a pro-democracy, saving our democracy election.

And as long as that's what we're talking about. And if Donald Trump wants to talk about crime, we talk about his crimes. And this is something that this ticket can effectively do. And it doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room for Republicans. As well, we can see, and I go to my friend Mike Madrid, who is an expert on these types of numbers, he estimates that we could see a good 10%, if not more, of defectors, of GOP defectors. Remember, there are about six things that are true now that were not true or that we didn't know in 2016 and 2020. And this is where you get Nikki Haley voters.

We did not have the insurrection then. There was not the Stormy Daniels payoff thing. There was not the rape. There was not the stolen documents. There was not the bribing, trying to bribe, President Zelensky, you know, and stealing the 11th, despite, mind me 11,000 whatever votes in Georgia. These things were a bridge too far from many Republicans. So many of these Republicans say, okay, you didn't give me Nikki Haley.

I'm not going to vote. I'll look third party. Or maybe I'll look at the Democrats. I think the Kamala Harris, vice presidential pick, brings a lot of these white men into that fold. Elizabeth, I want your view on the same topic. Obviously, it's not a position in any way that you're arguing per se, but I'm just talking about political reality here and having to connect with voters in those swing states who feel battered by inflation, who subjectively feel the country is headed in the wrong direction,

who probably historically do not have much of a history or an inclination in terms of voting for female political leaders who may have struggled at times with Barack Obama's candidacy and time as president of the United States. These aren't factors or features that we like. We're certainly not celebrating them, but they are, in a sense, part of the reality of American politics today, again, amongst these key groups,

these key demographics, this key geography that will decide likely the outcome of the 2024 presidential race. Well, there was a really interesting study that just came out last week, I think, by some Oxford University researchers. It was a meta-analysis of, like, hundreds of previous studies.

And it found that it might not be the negative thing that many people think to be a minority candidate in any sort of way or to be to be non-white or to be not a man. They found that especially being a woman and being Asian could really be to a candidate's benefit because as much as it might turn some people off, it brought in more in-group voting. So women are more likely to vote for a woman and Asian people were more likely to vote for an Asian person, whereas white people weren't any more likely to vote for white people. So it's not as clear cut as I think that everyone assumes that, you know, that her being a woman or her being a black and Asian woman is necessarily going to be a net negative for her. I definitely do think that you're correct that it, you know, it has the possibility to turn off certain sorts of voters. But I think that many of those voters were not going to be, you know, Harris vote. We're not going to be democratic voters in general. So I don't know how much that is actually going to hurt her amongst people that were, you know,

even persuadable at all to vote for them. I think that, you know, you are going to have, as, as Sherry said, the fact that she's a California Democrat is just going to, you know, some people are just automatically going to assume that she is out of touch, that she is a coastal elite. It really is not going to help that you've got this, you know, independent body that has labeled her like one of the most liberal people in the Senate. It is not going to help that she's sort of portraying herself as to be to the left of Joe Biden, who, you know, many people have issues with sort of his economic policies.

And also, I don't, I'm not exactly sure that the Tim Walls thing will help because, you know, he's a white man. So if people are just voting based on sort of a, you know, a candidate that looks like him, okay. But if you actually look at his record, he's, you know, a lot less moderate than some of the other people that she could have chosen. Like, for instance, Shapiro in Pennsylvania. So, you know, there's, when you start looking at his record, he, he's got a lot of the farther left that endorses him because of some of the things he supported. So I don't know that he actually can help her also sort of overcome this sort of idea that she's going to be too radical for many sort of more moderate voters. Thank you, Elizabeth. Okay, before we get a closing statement, so I want to get the help from both of you to try to assist our audience and thinking through the next 100 days.

What are the things that they should be looking for in Sherry? In your case, what should they be trying to suss out to really understand? understand that Kamala Harris is gaining real traction with American voters and is, in a sense, sealing the deal between now and November. What are you going to be on the watch for to get a sense that this candidacy is jelling? It is about growing and sustaining the current energy, which I think she can do. I think the ticket can do. That will be important. We'll continue to watch the polls to see how young people and independence, do they keep flocking to her? Because right now, they are doing so. And in part, because of this vice presidential pick, it has been an important choice.

But as I noted before, this is a pro-democracy campaign. People want to see the corruption cleaned up. So that's going to make it more difficult for the Trump campaign. What do they even have to talk about besides making racist and sexist barbs? So that will be important to watch the energy, to see that excitement growing, to see her drawing in the new people. And the real challenge will be that segment of white male voters, the ones that aren't part of the cult, aren't the racist, sexist ones, but the ones that maybe don't feel like they're really being spoken to yet. I'm going to note that, you know, this ticket is not so much about liberal policies as about cleaning up democracy. and are these two people strong enough to do it, smart enough to do it, and good enough people to do it? And that seems to be the question, and they seem to be doing a fairly good job of answering that question so far. Thank you, Sherry.

Okay, final and similar question for you, Elizabeth, what are you going to be looking for maybe to understand that the Harris campaign is in trouble? that maybe some of her weaknesses have come out and have had an effect on the campaign that could be material. So what could either be the key pivot points in the campaign, the key kind of test proofs that we might see? And again, what would concern you in a Harris candidacy between now and November? I think that it's going to be interesting to see where Harris goes when she stopped. just trying to position herself as not being Trump or as not being just, you know, a generic Democrat who is, you know, not the Republican Party because I think that there's like been a lot of hitting at the Republican Party and there's not been a lot of defining who she would be as

president. And it's a little bit unclear who she would be as president because, again, she has gone all around, you know, back and forth and all around when it comes to various positions, positions on marijuana, positions on health care, positions on things like the death penalty, positions on prostitution, positions on all sorts of criminal justice and civil liberties issues. She has just sort of, it's unclear what sort of Kamala Harris we are going to get as president. And I don't think she's been very clear yet on who that would be. And I know that for a lot of voters, they vote on vibes. And that's not exactly going to matter.

But I do think that when you talk about voters who are not necessarily convinced about the Democratic Party in general, who maybe are thinking of voting independent, who maybe are thinking for the Libertarian Party candidate, Chase Oliver, who are maybe thinking of not voting, that they want to see either that she, you know, what her policy positions are or at least that she has some policy positions. Because I think that there is a real sense. The biggest sort of accusation that's really stuck with her is that she doesn't have a political core, that she's sort of just willing to say whatever is very popular amongst the Democratic base and the Democratic Party elites at the moment or, you know, to a particular audience that wants to hear it. And that there is no sort of core ideology driving her. And I don't

don't think so far that she's done anything in her, you know, brief campaign so far to sort of allay those fears. So I think we're really watching for is, you know, is she actually going to take that step, but try to define herself instead of just being in opposition to Trump, but as something different? And when she does, does it ring as authentic or does it ring as just sort of another attempt to say whatever is, you know, called for in the moment? And then she's going back on a few days later or a few weeks later, like we saw in 2020. Excellent. Thank you so much, Elizabeth. You are listening to our debate today, be it resolved. Camel Harris is the Democrats' best hope for defeating Donald Trump. Let's go to closing statements now and have you both leave our audience with a key thought or insight that you think they should carry with them top of mind into November's historic vote. Sherry, I'm going to start with you and put a final two minutes on the show clock for your summing up. Kamala Harris is the best candidate. I think she has proven this on the campaign trail as vice president and as senator. She is strong. She is tough. As I noted before, we saw her take on Bill Barr. We saw her take on Brett Kavanaugh. So she has proven herself in that regard. We know why Joe Biden chose her to be vice president. We know why Joe Biden had immediately backed her and endorsed her to be president when he decided to step

side. She's shown excellent political judgment in her vice presidential pick. She understands the country. She understands people. She understands politics. And she has been, in fact, pitch perfect to the point where even her greatest fans, I think, have been so pleasantly surprised. There's no indication that that's going to stop for any reason. I think she's been made for this moment. As I said, this is a pro-democracy, save the country time. We are looking for someone to, you know, do triage. We're looking for someone to stop Project 2025 to save Social Security and Medicare, not let the MAGA Republicans ruin this country. First and foremost, that's what people want. People vote on image. Sometimes when there's something on the ballot, a specific issue,

a ballot initiative, they do vote on issues. And I do think that reproductive rights are extremely important. And Kamala Harris is a leader in that, which is pivotal at this particular point in time. People vote on image, though, and issues help define the image. Right now, they want someone who's not weird, who's not dishonest, who's not a felon, who's not a liar, who's not a cheater, who's not a traitor, who's not somebody who is doing everything he can to show how racist and sexist he is. I mean, in that regard, it should be easy to run against Donald Trump. But given the past nine years and the media's fascination with him, it's actually made

it very difficult. So to see Kamala Harris be able to pick that lock in such a quick, rapid period of time is refreshing. It shows she has the political chops to do this. This is what people have been waiting for. And I'll leave you with this. Because Donald Trump is so great for clicks and ratings, the media has loved him. They've relied on him. And that is one big reason why he is still in the game and why he became president in the first place.

The fact that Kamala Harris and Tim Walls have taken that from. him they now control the narrative they control the ratings they control the tv he doesn't know what to do because the media will always go with who gives them the best show and right now that is harris and wals thank you so much sherry jacobos for that excellent summing up okay elizabeth we're going to give you the last word in today's debate be resolved camille harris is the democrats best hope for defeating Donald Trump. What's the key insight or idea that you want to leave our audience with as we conclude this excellent debate? I think the media has been very kind to Harris so far because they have been excited about her not being Biden and especially not being Trump. And I think that

there's been a sort of lack of willingness to interrogate her weak spots so far. But I don't foresee that this is going to be able to continue for the next several months. I think that these weak spots are going to come up. And she does have a lot of weak spots. She has this history of doing a lot of very questionable things when she was in California of sort of, you know, saying she went alternatives to incarceration for drug, people arrested of marijuana, and then cracking down on people arrested for marijuana, cracking down on the parents of kids who are too absent from school, sort of going to bat for dirty prosecutors and covering up police misconduct, refusing to support things like police accountability measures, refusing to support things like letting people

out of prison when their sentences were up because she said that the state needed the free labor from the prison. I mean, there's just this really long history of things that are really questionable decisions on her part. And if those are things that she says, look, like, whatever the circumstances were that I did them, I disavow them now, okay. But we have not seen that from her. What we see from her when she ever is called out on these things is to get very defensive and to sort of laugh it off or change the subject. And I just don't think that, you know, that's going to be a winning strategy if people actually do start hitting her on some of these more substantive things. And also, I think that that's proven to not be a terribly winning strategy in a lot of her past campaigns.

Because, you know, when she was Attorney General of California, she should have won very easily in 2010. Instead, she only won by one percentage point. All of her races that she sort of started off as this big, hyped up frontrunner. She has either lost or had to drop out or won by a very narrow margin when it's when other Democrats were winning by much larger margins. So I think she's, you know, does not have a great track record on this front. If she does win in November, and I don't think that that's in a possibility at all. But if she does, I think it will because people are voting against Donald Trump and not because people are voting for Kamala Harris.

Thank you so much, Elizabeth, for an excellent debate performance also. And just on behalf of the Monk Debates community, thank you both for coming on the program. Today, it's a kind of hyperactive media news cycle that we're in right now as we gear up to November's Stork vote and to have your civil, substantive, informed reflection and insights. It's just a real privilege for our community. And we thank you on behalf of the 100,000 strong monk membership. So Elizabeth, Sherry, thanks for coming on the program. Thank you.

Thank you. Well, that wraps up today's debate. I want to thank our participants, Sherry and Elizabeth. You've certainly given us a lot to think about. A reminder that you can vote on who you think won this debate. Was it Sherry or Elizabeth? Go to our website right now, triple W monkdebates.com to become a free member, no cost to you,

and cast your vote on this debate. If you have feedback or reflections on what you've just heard, we always like to hear from our monk audience. Please send us an email to podcast at monkdebates.com. That's MUNK, Debates with an episode. dot com. Thank you for lending your time and attention to our efforts to bring back the art of civil and substantive public debate, one conversation at a time. I'm your host and moderator, Rudyard Griffiths. The Monk Debates are a project of the Aurea and Peter and Melanie

Monk Charitable Foundations. Rudyard Griffiths and Ricky Gerwitz are the producers. Be sure to download and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. And if you like us, feel free to give us a five-star rating. Thank you again for listening.