Vice President Kamala Harris recently appeared on “60 Minutes” in an interview that could be significant in reaching voters in the final month leading up to Election Day. Many voters still have unanswered questions about her identity and policies, prompting her to tackle difficult subjects such as the Middle East, the economy, immigration, and Ukraine. Former President Donald Trump’s absence from the show may be linked to his desire to avoid tough questioning.
During a conversation with colleagues Charles Lane and Ramesh Ponnuru, impressions of Harris’s performance varied. Lane described her response style as sticking to pre-set talking points, while Ponnuru noted that, although many politicians avoid questions, Harris’s attempts were particularly apparent. CBS’s Bill Whitaker, serving as the interviewer, maintained pressure on her to answer, bringing up questions she previously evaded multiple times, particularly on immigration.
Lane praised Whitaker’s interviewing style, emphasizing the effectiveness of direct questioning without excessive preamble. This was perceived as a testament to his skills, evidenced by similar interactions with other public figures. Ponnuru suggested that Trump might have struggled had he accepted an invitation given Harris’s challenges.
The discussion highlighted Harris’s long-standing reluctance to engage in interviews, which some Republicans have criticized. The significance of this particular interview lies in the rarity of her appearances. Lane expressed skepticism that the interview would shift public opinion significantly, as Harris failed to offer new insights on key issues like immigration. He pointed out her weak response to the question regarding the timing of efforts to control cross-border flows as a notable concern.
Harris’s positions on immigration and the economy were seen as underdeveloped, with Ponnuru stating that she hasn’t solidified an effective political message on these topics. Her comments were viewed as evasive yet somewhat sensible, emphasizing the need for Congressional action.
The conversation shifted again to Harris’s discussion of U.S. foreign policy, particularly regarding Ukraine. Many agreed that she appeared more confident while addressing these issues than on domestic matters. Lane remarked that despite her limited experience in foreign affairs compared to domestic policy, she dealt adeptly with questions surrounding international engagement, particularly in relation to negotiations with Russia.
Sentiments about the economy presented a different picture, with polling indicating that Harris and Trump are nearly even on this essential issue. Factors contributing to this include improving economic indicators and Trump’s inconsistent messaging on economic policies. Tariffs also emerged as a common topic, with remarks suggesting bipartisan support, as well as highlighting Harris’s position against them in context to Trump’s more extreme proposals.
Looking ahead, colleagues expressed differing opinions on Harris’s strategy in the coming weeks. Lane recommended she focus on pivotal states like Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania to galvanize voter support. In contrast, Ponnuru suggested she should communicate a moderating stance on various issues, potentially appealing to those voters who are hesitant about her progressive positions while also disliking Trump.
Overall, there was a consensus that this late in the campaign, any policy shifts would likely have a limited impact, emphasizing that mobilization efforts would be critical for her success.