Donald Trump, the first former U.S. president ever convicted on 34 felony counts, faced a torrent of scorn and ridicule after he declared, “A criminal is a criminal, they generally stay a criminal,” during a rally in St. Cloud, Minnesota on Saturday.
Alternative headline: Trump finally tells the truth about something.
So her position, I think, is pretty clear. I don’t agree with the drug crime approach, but in general I approve of her approach as a DA/AG.
That said - I do thoroughly hope she takes that clip, notes that she has zero criminal convictions, and a (hopefully running) tally of Trump’s convictions, and then signs off with “I am Kamala Harris and I approve this message”.
Honestly, the clip of him saying “they’re gonna say ‘im a prosecutor and he’s a felon’” and then her endorsing that message is so much more direct and unnuanced. Doesn’t need to be cut or contextualized. The entire 10 second clip is the whole thing.
The worry with letting your opponent make your case for you is that it means you need to give your opponent screentime.
The more you need to rely of the person being spoken to to think about what your opponent is saying as opposed to just listening, the more you risk the viewer agreeing with what you’re showing them as opposed to parsing it as hypocrisy.
If someone isn’t looking, and they just hear trump yelling about how criminals are criminals and they never change, they don’t get to see the contextualization that he has dozens of felony convictions and Harris has precisely zero.
It’s why trump talking about her credentials as a prosecutor and him being a felon, in a dumb voice to boot, is such a perfect setup: there’s no way to misinterpret it.
So while more clips are definitely feasible, a clip making trump sound tough on crime might not be ideal for the sound bite circuit.
As a DA, her record shows a focus on keeping non-violent criminals out of jail, and violent criminals in it.
She started the back on track program as well.
So her position, I think, is pretty clear. I don’t agree with the drug crime approach, but in general I approve of her approach as a DA/AG.
That said - I do thoroughly hope she takes that clip, notes that she has zero criminal convictions, and a (hopefully running) tally of Trump’s convictions, and then signs off with “I am Kamala Harris and I approve this message”.
Honestly, the clip of him saying “they’re gonna say ‘im a prosecutor and he’s a felon’” and then her endorsing that message is so much more direct and unnuanced. Doesn’t need to be cut or contextualized. The entire 10 second clip is the whole thing.
And it’s a great clip.
No reason to make it the only one though.
True.
The worry with letting your opponent make your case for you is that it means you need to give your opponent screentime.
The more you need to rely of the person being spoken to to think about what your opponent is saying as opposed to just listening, the more you risk the viewer agreeing with what you’re showing them as opposed to parsing it as hypocrisy.
If someone isn’t looking, and they just hear trump yelling about how criminals are criminals and they never change, they don’t get to see the contextualization that he has dozens of felony convictions and Harris has precisely zero.
It’s why trump talking about her credentials as a prosecutor and him being a felon, in a dumb voice to boot, is such a perfect setup: there’s no way to misinterpret it.
So while more clips are definitely feasible, a clip making trump sound tough on crime might not be ideal for the sound bite circuit.
Which is why it needs the context of the convictions as I mentioned. Just stick it right on top of him on screen.