It would n’t be a hard sell that Kamala Harris “exceeded expectations” or “over performed” in last night’s debate, but the surest sign that she did neither is the immediate sticky, slavish post-debate media coverage. Yet though Kamala had allegedly soiled herself on level, I’m convinced that all of it was already written.
Michael Barbaro, a host of the New York Times” The Regular” audio, said Kamala “dominated and enraged Donald Trump.” Mike Allen at Axios said Kamala “delivered for Democrats”. The Washington Post heralded her” strong, blazing” performance.
Politico painfully dubbed the night an “alpha female discussion”, and its” Playbook” email laid it on so heavy, you’d swear they allow Kamala read it herself. “HARRIS WINS”, it said.  ,” If there’s any one word to describe the solution to Trump’s success in business and elections, it ‘s , dominance“. In case you missed it the first time, Politico wrote again,” there was a dominant presence on stage in Philadelphia, and it sure was n’t Trump”.
Regardless of party affiliation, a typical person who actually watched the conversation might have concluded that either applicant eked out a win or perhaps none did. Without accusing him of being ordinary, Elon Musk, who has endorsed Trump, said Kamala “exceeded most citizens ‘ expectations”.
But what it was n’t was a decisive victory for Kamala. Even with non-stop, very good support from the network show’s two Democrat moderators, actually turning the affair into a three-against-one brawl, the vice president struggled. How could she not? Her campaign tries to make her appear brand new by not only is she now occupying the White House but also firmly supports the dreadful record of her administration. Even if the entire thing breaks, she hopes the media does intervene by pressing the square prevent into the group hole.
Reuters, to its record, ran a story on 10 American citizens who said before the conversation they were undecided on the prospects, but afterwards, most of them, six, said they were both committed to Trump or leaning towards him.
So much for” DOMINATED”.
Under the article” Experts Said Harris Won the Debate,” the New York Times ran an exceedingly self-aware article the following morning. Confused Voters Were n’t So Positive”. It was written in such a way that it accurately expressed the opinion of a voting who was leaning toward Trump during the argument.
” As he watched post-debate criticism on cable information, Mr. Henderson said he bristled at the critics who widely panned Mr. Trump’s performance”, the post said. ” Had they watched the exact conversation, he wondered”?
A media that has even the slightest sense of self-reflection might think to themselves,” Hmm, sometimes we’re a little too preoccupied with our personal political interests and not taking into account a wider range of possible ideas.” But that’s not our advertising. They’re declaring a success before a second vote is also cast, which is what they’ve tried to do in the previous two presidential elections. They’ll suggest and carry Kamala across the finish line with all they can.
