Yeah, I know….🙄

Pretend she’s going to lose, VOTE, and remind everyone you know to vote. Drive friends to the polls, help them with their mail in ballots (legally, please), and get your absentee ballot ASAP if you need one. Democrats have a massive disadvantage in the electoral college, so every. single. person. has to vote. No excuses.

Thank you. Politico needs to dial it the fuck back with these headlines.

Yup. Whenever I come across an article with a bunch of blank spaces where tweets are supposed to be, I know the “article” wouldn’t have been worth my time anyway. It’s one of the laziest kinds of journalism.

Nobody asked you. Keep your creepy diddling religion out of our politics. Or start paying taxes.

She appears incapable of recognizing reality, and we don’t need another candidate like that. By staying so obstinate her votes will likely go to Trump. If she doesn’t understand that political reality, she shouldn’t be anywhere near a general election.

A normal person would learn from their multiple failures, but not Stein.

Well said. I think it all comes down to having basic respect for people’s choices. We’re sexual animals, but we all have the right to express our sexuality as little or as much as we want.

People should be allowed to be both objectified if they want to be or not if they don’t want to be. This is true for everyone and can change day to day.

I love this. Just because someone welcomes objectification one day, doesn’t imply they want it the next day.

I’m so glad this guy is sticking with the bit. Patrick Gathara for those wondering. This framing does a spectacular job of exposing the absurdity of American politics and ‘American Exceptionalism’ on the world stage.

He did one for the Democratic Convention too, which was excellent.

This would be genuinely hilarious if it wasn’t so goddamn serious for so many indoctrinated folks.

So let me get this straight: she’s black, she’s south Asian, she’s a woman, she’s married to a Jew, and she’s a witch? I think I like her even more now…

I thoroughly enjoyed that, thank you.

The way she spoke to multiple audiences in the same answer was masterful. She would start by addressing the camera and the American people about something substantive, then turn directly to Trump and bait him with something she knows he won’t be able to ignore, by looking straight at him and saying stuff like “military leaders who worked for you have told me that you are a disgrace.” So. Damn. Good. And he refused to make eye contact with her, which says a lot.

I’m not sure if people realize how hard it is to pull something like that off, especially to a person who leans on racist/misogynistic/violent rhetoric.

If it was a political scientist or some respected analyst, sure, I’d agree. But I have trouble seeing this as analysis when it’s a journalist being interviewed about what they think viewers should take away from a different interview they did. Interviews speak for themselves, that’s the whole point. We can be critical of the forcefulness of the journalist, of course, but Bash’s take on how she thinks the interview went and what viewers should think about Harris’ responses is not worthy of a whole news article, and is a good example of the rot in corporate media, in my opinion.

“I tried. I mean, you can’t force somebody to answer a question, and I asked to follow up. I tried to get more into the nitty-gritty and get the answer. Sometimes, in my experience in doing interviews, is that once you ask once, fine. Twice, fine. Three times, if you don’t get a clear answer, that’s kind of your answer,” Bash responded.

What does that actually add to our political discourse? It’s not some brilliant political analysis. Her answer, if she really needs to say anything, should just be “watch the interview, it speaks for itself.”

Fair question. I’m bothered that this is a story at all. Journalists should never be the subject of the story unless they’ve done something wild and newsworthy, and this article is about a journalist’s opinion about another journalist interviewing a different journalist about their interview. It’s meaningless punditry about other pundits.

It’s fox, so I shouldn’t be surprised, but this is a journalist, talking about another journalist’s response to a different journalist’s interview skills. This is not news, it’s cyclical punditry at its worst.

Harris expertly baited him a few times, and it worked flawlessly. He raged about all the things she said he would.

I think she did a damn fine job as a whole, but those moments were very satisfying to watch.