Kamala’s ‘Charm’ Blitzkrieg Fails Miserably

There are some people so incompetent that they could blow a tap-in putt. “Hand me the wedge,” they say as they overlook a 2-inch gap. You can’t help these people, even though they are likely the most in need of saving anyone, because you can’t save people from themselves. This, I suspect, is why the handlers of Kamala Harris have chosen to run the campaign they have.

Hiding is the only defense against incompetence. The only problem is that no matter where you hide, there you are. A person can escape a lot, themselves is not one of them.

After two months of hiding not working, as the public notices the Democratic Party’s nominees for president and vice president haven’t really done much talking beyond scripted, vapid stump speeches, the Harris/Walz campaign has decided to launch a “charm offensive.” They decided to let their candidates talk in what can only be described as either uber-friendly or softly-scripted interviews with supporters…and they still did horribly.

You can tell a lot about the amount of faith a campaign has in its candidates by the people they’re willing to talk to. For example, Donald Trump will do pretty anything and to almost anyone, unless they’ve mistreated him in the past.

Kamala Harris and Tim Walz, on the other hand, would need their own family members screened and topics agreed to before they’d sit down for breakfast with them. (In Kamala’s case you might be able to understand it, as news reports indicated her husband allegedly has no problem smacking a woman around if she displeases him.)

Aside from a 3 on a 1 to 10 scale of toughness interview with 60 Minutes, Democrats could not have played it safer than they have.

https://cafehayek.com/2010/01/maybe-the-dogs-dont-like-it.html

Once upon a time a pet food company created a new variety of dog food and rolled out a massive marketing campaign to introduce the product. Despite hiring a first-rate advertising agency, initial sales were very disappointing. The agency was fired and a new agency and a new campaign was launched. Sales continued to disappoint. If anything, they fell even further. In desperation, the CEO called in all of the top executives for a brainstorming session to analyze what had gone wrong with the two campaigns and how a new campaign might revive sales.

The meeting went on for hours. Sophisticated statistical analysis was brought to bear on the problem. One VP argued that the mix of TV and print ads had been messed up. Another argued that the previous campaigns had been too subtle and had failed to feature the product with sufficient prominence. Another argued that the TV ad campaign had focused too much on spots during sporting events and not enough on regular programming with a broader demographic. Another argued the opposite–not enough sports programming had been targeted. After the debate had raged for hours, the CEO felt they had accomplished very little. He asked if anyone else had any theories that might explain the failure of the new product.

Finally, one newly hired employee raised his hand and was recognized. Maybe the dogs don’t like it, she said.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.