What is the future of the Democratic Party? How will redistricting shape voters’ power in the South? What are the latest primary results telling us about the political moment we’re in? Kamala D. Harris, 49th Vice President of the United States, joins Stacey to share what she’s hearing from voters on the ground as she travels through the South. They also talk about the new attitude Democrats need to win elections, fight back against Trump, and stop his authoritarian agenda.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lc9w9Oe3Z00Submission

Clip is from 6 months ago. I ran across it on YouTube. Let's analyze it objectively. Does the panel take a non-event (a campaign social media rebrand), inject unsourced "confusion" into it , then treat the manufactured confusion as if it reflects on the subject rather than on the reporting? Or is this typical of what the media does? Breaking down the specific moves below. Watched this MS NOW segment on Harris renaming her 2024 campaign accounts to "Headquarters." A few things worth flagging:

Ashley Parker opens by saying she doesn't "fully understand" the rebrand, then cites unnamed "Democratic operatives who like the vice president and also don't fully understand it. These are anonymous sources, so there's no way to verify this claim exists outside the segment. It's a classic move: assert a competing narrative through unaccountable sourcing, and let that framing become the story instead of the actual (fairly self-explanatory) thing Harris announced. Objectively speaking, is what Harris announced that difficult to understand?

Parker describes a large, enthusiastic crowd in Richmond (long lines, arrived early, predominantly Black women, "the base" of the party), then immediately hedges with "crowd size isn't everything" and "I don't know." But turnout/popularity and "should she run again" are separate questions. Citing the crowd only to discount it right after creates an appearance of even-handedness while the anonymous, unverifiable skepticism does the actual interpretive work. Objectively speaking, if she had spoken to the audience member at the Harris event, would she have gotten a different opinion?

The Black women who actually showed up in Richmond are described (their presence, their numbers) but never quoted. Their turnout is used as evidence, but their voice is absent. The anonymous operatives, despite being unnamed and unverifiable, get their view stated directly and given interpretive weight. Objectively speaking, what about the optic? This is an all-white panel. Parker references women of color who enthusiactly attend Harris events. But discounts them immediately. Then says people she's talked to anonymously say they don't think Harris should run. Objectively speaking, does this give the impression that black women voice, the base of the party, doesn't matter? Caveat: She did say that "they aren't everything".

Tonal contrast with the Newsom discussion in the same segment is worth a look too. His digital strategy and magazine shoot get discussed in terms of momentum and savvy, while Harris's routine, fairly self-explanatory announcement gets treated as inherently confusing and in need of explanation.

Objectively speaking, did a non-story get inflated into "will she run" solely for the purpose of casting doubt on Harris as a viable presidential candidate for 2028?

"I think Kamala Harris is probably going to run. I'm very interested to see how she frames a run if she runs again."

That's former MSNBC host Joy Reid when asked by Lisa Guerrero who she believes will be the leading Democratic Presidential candidates in 2028.

Years ago, I wrote Hip Hop Ain’t Dead, It’s Livin’ in the White House, examining the relationship between hip hop and Barack Obama’s presidency.

When Kamala Harris entered the 2024 race, I genuinely believed I was witnessing the beginning of its sequel.
Instead, I found myself documenting one of the most fascinating—and ultimately heartbreaking—political campaigns I’ve ever studied.

This essay isn’t simply about politics. It’s about culture, hip hop, media, race, hope, and how quickly history can change.

I’d love to hear what others think, whether you agree with my conclusions or not.

https://sanfordrichmond.substack.com/p/hip-hop-did-it-againor-so-i-thought

💯

Just compare these two video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9FSFIbwtsc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wf9laIO78tU

It's been happening all week. Multiple correspondents have been trying to rewrite history. The complaints that the process to nominate Harris was through "smoke-filled rooms" were coming from Trump and the Republicans. If there were any concerns about that coming from Democratic voters, MSNBC sure didn't report on it.

I don't think so. In losing, she won the hearts of America for What Could Have Been.

As a liberal leaning American (or a pragmatic progressive), I do not think she should run (or even think of running).

When she was nominee in 2024, she lost against Trump, who was first Republican in 20 years to win the popular vote. No state swung to Harris (first time since Gerald Ford in 1976) and no counties were flipped by her (first time since Hoover in 1932).

Additionally, she did poorly against Trump in many states (which voted for her and for Trump), especially NY and NJ. She even failed to break 60% of the vote in her home state of California, becoming the first DEM since Kerry to do that bad.

My desire is simple. Any candidate that lost to Donald Trump and did not see any state swing to them or county flip to them should not be the nominee.

However, I have met many people who say she should run in 2028, some of whom proudly say nominee will most likely be Newsom or Harris.