[Hoot Gibson]

She dodged on a couple of questions, but she held her own for the most part.  I have to giver her props for agreeing to go on Fox knowing that the questions would be difficult and the environment hostile.  The other candidate doesn't have the guts to go on MSNBC and face the heat.

I talked to a couple of undecided voters today who were pretty strongly leaning towards Trump last week that are now leaning towards Harris after watching her and Trump both this week.  Her biggest obstacle to overcome is there are a whole lot of people, mainly men, who have a real problem in voting for a woman, let alone one of mixed race.

We might not like to admit it but I do believe there is some real truth to this. There are some men who will never vote for a woman to be president. And a mixed race woman makes her a two (or three) time loser to those men.

---

I think 538's algorithm is not accounting for the intangibles that Kamala brings to this race. There has never been a candidate with the credibility issues that Harris has. There are reasons that Kamala has never won a single delegate in a primary election and it required a bait and switch to get her into the game. She is a one of one that no algorithm can account for.

I'm a big believer in the importance of intangibles in sports. Analytics can't account for those intangibles. But intangibles win and lose a lot of games. So, intangibles in politics can't be overlooked. Good point, Hoot. We'll just have to see which candidate's intangibles are most costly to him/her.

I realized when I read your response that I did my meaning across as I intended. Kamala does not have the least credibility of any candidate in history, but she does have some severe credibility problems. I don't remember which presidential campaign absolutely wore out the word "gravitas," but her lack of gravitas is as big an issue for her as credibility. 

Like him or hate him, Trump is a former president and none of the liberal doomsday predictions came true. We survived and we thrived until the pandemic dragged down the economy, and even then, he (regrettably) supported most, if not all of the extreme measures of pushed by Anthony Fauci. Trump and other former presidents earned some gravitas points simply be surviving four years or more as president. Being a VP/Immigration Czar who never even visited the southern border until recently has not, been as George W. Bush would say the "decider."

Harris has also not been vetted by the primary process. If zero committed delegates constitutes "vetting," then Kamala failed miserably.

These are a few reasons that I do not believe that tweaking a polling algorithm will be as accurate in her case as it would be for a traditional candidate with a more extensive track record. I do not believe that most voters will believe that any Kamala action has had any impact on stock market indices, and the state of the economy is usually an important part of presidential election models.

I see where Bret admits he had the wrong clip played in the interview with the next President Harris. Told you Bret was afraid of losing his job.

If Baier's assignment was to allow Kamala to make a fool of herself, then - Mission Accomplished. But I think you are giving Bret way too much credit. He had the option of just sitting there like a spectator and allow Kamala to ramble aimlessly to run out the clock or to interrupt her and ask her to answer the questions that she had been asked. Baier chose to do the responsible thing and not allow her to filibuster for 30 minutes. She was going to look like a fool either way, but at least she did not make it through an entire campaign without being asked tough questions.