Fact check: Kamala Harris makes false claim about Trump and auto jobs

[Princetonian]

Last edited Thu Aug 15, 2019, 09:03 AM - Edit history (1)

I'm surprised that Harris was not corrected by anyone in the media after she made her July 12 claim that 700,000 auto industry jobs would be lost by year's end but it's a fact that the press has gone very easy on Harris compared to Joe In part because she's running fourth in most national and state polls outside of California. These unforced errors are not malapropisms. Harris was giving interviews both times she made her false claims.

Washington (CNN) In an interview with CNN on Monday, Sen. Kamala Harris argued that President Donald Trump has failed to deliver on his promises to workers. And she issued a dire warning about autoworkers' jobs in particular. "... it is estimated that as many as 300,000 autoworkers may be out of a job before the end of the year," she said aboard her campaign bus in Iowa.

That was a more conservative figure than Harris used July 12 on the radio show "The Breakfast Club," during which she said, "... Meanwhile, some estimate that as many as 700,000 autoworkers were going to lose their job before the end of the year."

Both figures are incorrect.

Facts First: ...there has been an increase in autoworker jobs during the Trump presidency... Harris was wrong to claim that experts are suggesting there might be a massive decline in autoworker jobs within five months.

Harris' campaign told CNN that the "300,000" figure came from a study published in February by the Center for Automotive Research. That study, however, estimated approximately 367,000 job losses in the entire economy, not among autoworkers... the estimate was for job losses a year after Trump imposed a 25% tariff on automobiles and auto parts from every country except for Canada, Mexico and South Korea -- which he has not done... a co-author of the study and the Center for Automotive Research's vice president for industry, labor and economics, said the center has not published a specific job-loss estimate for autoworkers. But she said it is "highly unlikely" there would be a loss even close to 300,000 autoworkers by the year's end... Harris' "700,000" figure relied on a previous Center for Automotive Research study, published in July 2018, that estimated a loss of more than 700,000 jobs if Trump imposed a 25% tariff on automobile and auto parts imports from every country. This estimate, too, was for all kinds of jobs, not autoworkers alone, and the Center for Automotive Research says it has been supplanted by the updated analysis in the February 2019 study.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/14/politics/fact-check-kamala-harris-makes-false-claim-about-trump-and-auto-jobs/index.html

[RockRaven]

1. "I'm surprised that Harris was not corrected by anyone in the media..."

You posted an article by CNN. CNN is not media? This article is not correcting her?

[Princetonian]

2. You forgot the other end of my statement.

"... after she made her July 12 claim that 700,000 auto industry jobs would be lost by year's end..."

It's been over a month. Do you think I should edit my OP to add, "Better late than never"?

[left-of-center2012]

3. Media playing favorites?

Nah !

[Princetonian]

6. Yes. I agree with Nate Silver - and also Rolling Stone.

It just shows,” says Hawaii congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, “that launching a smear campaign is the only response to the truth.”

Gabbard, 38, burst into headlines after a July 31 Democratic Party presidential debate, when she went after California Senator Kamala Harris’s record as Attorney General of the State of California. The “smear campaign” refers to the bizarre avalanche of negative press that ensued, as reporters seemed to circle wagons around a Harris, a party favorite... backed by nearly $25 million in campaign funds, Gabbard instantly became the subject of a slew of negative leaks, tweets, and press reports. Many of these continued the appalling recent Democratic Party tradition of denouncing anything it doesn’t like as treasonous aid to foreign enemies.

Harris national press chair Ian Sams tweeted, “Yo, you love Assad!”, a reference to Gabbard’s controversial visit with Syrian president Bashar al-Assad in 2017. He then tweeted a link to an insidious February 2 NBC News story, which asserted that Gabbard’s campaign was the beneficiary of Russian bots.

<snip>

The New York Times wrote Gabbard believes the United States has “wrought horror on the world,” and that “critics have called her actions un-American.” Politico denounced Gabbard’s “Star Wars bar scene-like following” and hissed that the Daily Stormer was a supporter (Gabbard has repeatedly condemned white nationalism and sworn off their support). On The View, co-host Sunny Hostin called Gabbard a “Trojan Horse,” while Ana Navarro viciously insinuated Gabbard, an Iraq veteran, was part of a foreign column.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/podcast-tulsi-gabbard-kamala-harris-syria-iraq-870003/

For the record, in the service of truth over lies:

".... Gabbard agreed to meet with Trump to make her case for a noninterventionist foreign policy. A few months later, she flew to Syria and met with Bashar al-Assad, who is presiding over a brutal civil war; she and he seemed to agree that the United States should not intervene to stop it."

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/06/what-does-tulsi-gabbard-believe

There have been exceptions in the print media, though, who seem less starstruck than talking heads. I have yet to read a debate fact check that refuted Gabbard's criticisms of Harris' history as DA and AG. In fact, Harris herself and her campaign has not refuted a single claim either, preferring to Attack The Messenger instead.

[FailureToCommunicate]

4. Um, okay then. Glad that's addressed.

[brush]

5. How can you fact check something that hasn't happened yet? Auto companies have been known to...

cut jobs they once promised were safe. I was just listening today on Progressive 127 satellite radio that GM fought to put a new plant in Hamtramck, MI through the courts because hundreds of homes, churches and business were on the site. GM promised 6000 jobs and eventually won and displaced that whole neighborhood but only ended up bringing in 3000 jobs, which is now down to 800 as the company is about to close the plant.

Point being that you can't always go by what is told to you by companies looking at their bottom line only. What was once a populated neighborhood will soon be yet another chainlinked, empty site/parking lot with a boarded up plant in the middle.

[thesquanderer]

89. How to fact check something that hasn't happened yet...

...is to check the source of her information, and then see if she represented the information accurately.

[brush]

92. Huh? If it hasn't happened yet how does she or a source know what will happen?

Predictions and promises can be made but they're only just that, predictions and promises. I tried to show that in the example of GM and Hamtramck.

[thesquanderer]

93. She's not claiming that something will happen, rather that EXPERTS SAY it will.

It is easy to fact-check that. You're not fact-checking whether it will happen, you're fact-checking whether people whose job it is to forecast these things SAY it has a likelihood of happening, because THAT is what she's asserting.

In other words, the fact check consists of checking the source of her information, and seeing if she represented the information accurately. If she did, it is factually accurate to say that experts think this may happen. According to this article, though, when you check her sources, they did not actually say this, therefore it is a false assertion, regardless of what does or doesn't happen in the future.

[bigtree]

7. Kamala was directing her fire at Trump here, not at any of our Democrats

...why defend him against Harris here at DU?

Is this what DU is for?

[Princetonian]

8. Harris misfired and made false claims twice in a month. The OP is a quote from CNN's front page.

I am posting a correction. What good are our candidates if they cannot get the facts straight? This was not a malapropism which can be forgiven.

[bigtree]

9. this has nothing to do with our primary

...and does little but defend Trump against her.

You should know Biden failed three WaPo 'fact checks' since May. I have the links.

[Princetonian]

10. It's a CNN Fact Check which is allowed here. Did you bother to read the article?

Obviously not. The article quotes the researchers whose sources Harris claimed she got her facts from and both people refuted what Harris said.

Fact checks do not favor one candidate or another. They just are.

Refrain from baiting me, please. Thank you in advance.

[bigtree]

11. this thread is the same politics I've seen you complain about against Biden, vociferously

...it has zero to do with our Democratic primary.

The article YOU POSTED does nothing but carry water for Trump. It isn't directed at our primary, it's a defense of Trump against Kamala Harris's claims.

So what this thread is, along with your commentary at the beginning, is an attack on a Democratic nominee for an attack she made against Trump.

It's fascinating to me that you apparently believe this is what this forum is for.

[Princetonian]

15. Apples and oranges: this is about Harris being wrong on the FACTS not an instance of malapropism.

[bigtree]

22. Biden's also been found 'wrong on facts'

..including charges made against Trump.

Should people post those here, as well?

Don't answer, I can already anticipate the unbearable howls of anguish and pain.

[Princetonian]

27. If Joe was wrong on the FACTS and made two false claims about Trump and the auto industry...

... in one month while misattributing his false claims with two different sources who then refuted his claims to CNN Fact Check, then I am 100% sure there would be competing OPs posted here. Ditto with Bernie.

Link to tweet

[bigtree]

29. he failed THREE WaPo fact checks

...and no one had the temerity (gall) to post them here.

Be better.

[Princetonian]

31. Malapropism corrections, hmm? Like I said, apples and oranges.

[bigtree]

36. no, not your new favorite word (which is an inaccurate description of recent mistatements by Biden)

...'malapropism' refers to confusion over similar sounding words, not misstatements of fact.

Also, the word, malapropism, doesn't accurately describe the misstatements Biden made recently. He did not unintentionally misuse a word, confusing it with one that sounded similar.

[MrsCoffee]

37. Noticed that too?

[bigtree]

38. and that word misused all over this thread

...damn, damn, damn.

What to do?

[Princetonian]

44. lol... do I get points for spelling?

[Princetonian]

39. Hmmm.... I was referring to this analysis.

66. It's more of a malapropism than a gaffe

But I guess a malapropism could be thought of as a type of gaffe.

"A malapropism (also called a malaprop or Dogberryism) is the use of an incorrect word in place of a word with a similar sound, resulting in a nonsensical, sometimes humorous utterance. An example is the statement by baseball player Yogi Berra, "Texas has a lot of electrical votes", rather than "electoral votes".[1] Malapropisms often occur as errors in natural speech and are sometimes the subject of media attention, especially when made by politicians or other prominent individuals. Philosopher Donald Davidson has said that malapropisms show the complex process through which the brain translates thoughts into language."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malapropism


I have a malapropism problem in both spoken and written language, and the most annoying thing is I don't know I've used one until someone points it out (or I catch it in proofreading).

News articles that pivot on a malapropism seem petty and contrived.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
ELIZABETH WARREN

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=233499

Misspeaking might be a better terms though Joe might be responsible for a malapropism or two on occasion though not as often as I am!

[bigtree]

40. no one has accused Biden of uttering a malapropism in this campaign

...not by a mile.

Swing and a miss.

[Princetonian]

42. No, reporters are partial to "gaffes".

[bigtree]

43. which is the relevant point of discussion; misstatements of fact

...not malapropisms.

As in, 'Joe Biden was found to have misstated facts in at least THREE WaPo 'fact checks' since May.

[Princetonian]

45. Are we going to argue how many angels can dance on the head of a pin next?

[bigtree]

47. no, we're talking about misstatements of fact

...you posted about two that Kamala Harris apparently made.

I've responded by informing you of at least THREE misstatements of fact reported by WaPo since May attributed to your candidate, Biden.

Let's revisit your posit to me above:

"What good are our candidates if they cannot get the facts straight?"

...

[Princetonian]

49. Resorting to whataboutism? See Reply 27.

Here, I will help you:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=240303

[bigtree]

50. another big word?

...careful.

[Princetonian]

46. Harris made two false claims in interviews a month apart and misattributed two separate sources...

... according to CNN Fact Check. Read the whole article.

Joe's occasional misspeakings have been nothing like Harris' unforced errors here.

Again, apples and oranges.

[bigtree]

48. the WaPo fact checks aren't instances of Biden merely mispeaking. Those were apparent on their face

...these fact checks accusing Biden of misrepresenting the facts are separate and apart from the recent 'gaffes.'

They are not one and the same.

Point is, both have apparently made unforced errors in accusing Trump, so far. You (meaning your candidate) don't have a sliver of room to criticize Harris here.

Of course, illogic hasn't prevented you, up to this point.

[Princetonian]

51. Your whataboutism is noted. This CNN Fact Check was issued yesterday and is timely front page news.

[bigtree]

53. it's not 'whataboutism'

...it's YOUR OWN STANDARD:

quote Princetonian:

"What good are our candidates if they cannot get the facts straight?"

Glass houses.

Rookie mistake?

[Princetonian]

59. lol... feel free to post a CNN Fact Check about Joe anytime, bigtree.

Last edited Thu Aug 15, 2019, 12:54 PM - Edit history (1)

Three other posters might beat you to it, though.

[bigtree]

61. no, I think it's despicable

...it's crap.

this is an unprompted 'whataboutism' :

"...feel free post a CNN Fact Check about Joe anytime, bigtree.

Three other posters might beat you to it, though."

...told you to be careful with those big words.

[Princetonian]

65. What's despicable the amount this thread has been about ATTACKING The Messenger.

But that's all you've got. You can't argue with the facts.

Just like with Tulsi Gabbard.

[bigtree]

66. I'm attacking the thread

...and wondering aloud what this defense of Trump against one of our Democratic candidates' attacks is doing on DU.

[Princetonian]

72. I respectfully disagree with your mischaracterization of this OP.

Posting a CNN Fact Check that corrects two false claims by Harris on the same subject does not equate to "defense of Trump" no matter how often you say it does.

[R B Garr]

96. What a spin job. You are the one talking about Trump

“this defense of Trump”. Those are your angry words about Harris being fact checked.

[bigtree]

52. they are absolutely the same

...and it remains that you're doing the unthinkable, trumpeting this article that does little more than carry water for Trump, I mean, it literally defends him against Kamala Harris. Fine for a news service, questionable for a DUer, imo.

And you should know (I'm not certain you're actually capable) that I've refrained from doing the same.

I don't think this is what most DUers come here for.

[Princetonian]

55. I respectfully disagree that this CNN Fact Check which is front page news is anything but unbiased.

I am 100% sure that if it were Joe, there would be competing OPs in this forum by now.
.

[bigtree]

58. I'm fairly certain no one has cared to post the at least THREE WaPo/Biden fact checks since May

...probably recognizing, as most folks do, that candidates will invariably, inevitably make misstatements of fact along the way of the campaign.

I've not yet seen someone bring a defense against one of our candidate's attacks on Trump here to DU. This looks like a first.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Princetonian]

60. I respectfully disagree w/your characterization. Since you have complaints, contact CNN Fact Check.

[bigtree]

62. CNN didn't post this here.

...you, Princetonian did.

[Princetonian]

63. Yes, that's how it works.

[Celerity]

80. +1

[obamanut2012]

23. Zero to do with the Democratic Primaries

Why do you keep doing this? The gentleman as your choice would not do this, nor condone it.

[Princetonian]

28. I respectfully disagree.

[thesquanderer]

91. re: "You should know Biden failed three WaPo 'fact checks' since May"

I expect that every candidate will make a mistake now and then. What I find a little bothersome about the one in the OP is that it sounds like she repeated the mistake even after being corrected. (I'm assuming Biden did not do the same?)

This reminded me of these articles:

On Colbert, Kamala Harris flubs wage gap statistic

Kamala Harris's Equal Pay Hoax

where again she seems to be repeating info she knows is wrong.

[R B Garr]

94. LOL! So according to you, only Biden gets fact checked.

It’s not a gaffe to flub facts? And attacking Democrats over a 40 year old divisive issue is helping Dems in the primaries how exactly?

[MrsCoffee]

32. What good are our candidates?

If they can’t get the facts straight?

Are you fucking kidding me? They can’t miss a beat while the Orange one is out there twisting every fact known to man?

Give me a flipping break.

[Princetonian]

100. I hold Harris to a higher standard than Cheeto Face.

[thesquanderer]

90. There are an abundance of things to attack Trump on. We should not make up ones that aren't true.

It gives opponents "proof" that our candidate can't be trusted in her accusations about Trump. That works against us. There are so many valid ones, why use ones that are not solid?

[jcgoldie]

12. Way to defend Donald Trump

Nice job... except for the comment someone above already mentioned that fact checking theoretical claims about what could happen in the future is not really a thing

[Princetonian]

13. Please address your complaints to CNN Fact Check. Thank you.

And while you are at it, you can also complain to the writer of the USA Today article, the investigative political reporter from Rolling Stone and the political reporter from The New Yorker to question their facts.

[bigtree]

14. WaPo

We’ve published three fact checks about former vice president Joe Biden in the month since he joined the presidential race..

https://www.arewereallyplayingthisgame.com

[Princetonian]

17. Good for you. How fast you change your tune, bigtree.

[bigtree]

20. so much for your complaints about attacks on Biden

[Princetonian]

21. Again, apples and oranges: this is about Harris being wrong on the FACTS not...

... an instance of malapropism.

[jcgoldie]

16. I'm addressing them to you

I'm pretty sure none of those sources posted a defense of the Trump Administration on DU. That was you.

[JI7]

18. +

[Princetonian]

19. Please show me where this CNN Fact Check does anything but correct both of Harris' false claims...

... in an impartial and excruciatingly dry tone.

[obamanut2012]

25. But why are you defending Trump in this forum?

You literally refuse to answer that. Why keep deflecting?

VP Biden wouldn't attack Harris to defend Trump, so why are you? He would scold you for what you are doing.

[Princetonian]

30. Harris is not infallible, is she? I am puzzled at the outrage over a simple CNN Fact Check.

[MrsCoffee]

34. Ok.

[obamanut2012]

24. +1

[SidDithers]

41. Yup...nt

Sid

[MrsCoffee]

26. Thank goodness you didn't let this slip by. Maybe you can call these media outlets and ask them to

run with this as their headline tonight. I know someone who would love that!



By the way, this post about her being fact checked makes the OP look really silly.

[LanternWaste]

33. A simply guess on your part? Or is there measurable data to support it?

"the press has gone very easy on Harris compared..."

A simply guess on your part? Or is there measurable data to support it?

[Princetonian]

35. I am going with Nate Silver and Rolling Stone on this. Your mileage may differ.

See Reply 6:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=240245

[Princetonian]

56. Au contraire. I am replying to attacks against me and my OP.

I volunteered from morning until early evening on my birthday weekend for Joe's kickoff rally. I sat in the VIP section right behind Chris Matthews and Governor Rendell. I find your ugly insinuations unfortunate and misguided.

[Instant Liberal]

57. Not to defend the statement, but....

One could easily assume that an entity called the Center for Automotive Research would be quoting data collected concerning automotive jobs, or at least those that affect the automotive industry, which is in fact automotive jobs.

[Princetonian]

75. Any levity is appreciated.

I love dry wit.

[rurallib]

64. Back in 2008 the Biden staffers in Iowa would hound me with calls

about how bad other Democratic candidates were. Nothing turned me off Joe Biden more than that.
One finally called me up and chewed my ass out for not supporting Biden. This included calling me stupid.

Keep trying to turn people against Biden's opponents and you are hurting Biden and hurting our other candidates.
Pushing other candidates down doesn't push yours up.

I don't understand how you can call a prediction about something that hasn't happened a lie.

[Princetonian]

68. FYI, I volunteered for Senator Obama in 2007-2008 and stood behind him on the risers at HyVee.

This OTT reaction is interesting. Were you this harsh with Harris supporters when they were defending Harris' right to make ugly implications that Joe is a racist who "worked with segregationists"? If so, please link to your comments.

Posting this timely CNN Fact Check which is front page news is something no amount of Attacking The Messenger will make me regret.

I am a Brooklyn-born New Yorker and we are made tough.

[bigtree]

70. ZERO Harris supporters said "Joe is a racist"

...and Joe, himself, first raised the issue of working with the two segregationists, one who openly called for the extermination of black people.

Why Did Joe Biden Praise a Segregationist Southern Senator ...
2020 rivals slam the former vice president, who spoke fondly of the “civility” of his relationship with a Mississippi senator who once called to “abolish the Negro race”
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/why-did-biden-praise-racist...

(note the article's from one of your favorites cited above as validation for your screed against Kamala Harris, Rolling Stone)

[Princetonian]

74. Strawman fail. I never said they did.

Kamala's attack on Biden was months in the making... She and her advisers assiduously plotted the attack — and how to capitalize on it afterward.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/28/kamala-harris-joe-biden-debate-1390383

[bigtree]

76. give it a rest

...you're being duplicitous now.

You (and the campaign) do more to highlight and perpetuate the controversy with these lame defenses than anything Kamala did in that debate.

...give it a rest.

[Princetonian]

77. Irony is dead.

[bigtree]

78. says the poster who couldn't resist posting an article carrying Trump water against a Dem candidate

...shameless, at that.

Glass houses, Princetonian. Facts (and words) just don't seem to be on your side at all on this thread.

And you can see from the article I posted that Kamala's charges were correct. Joe Biden did praise segregationists, and Kamala specifically said during that exchange that she DID NOT believe Biden was a racist.

Said it outright, then stated FACTS about what he had said, and who he had praised.

This is a loser for you and your candidate. Give it a rest.

[Princetonian]

81. Irony died again.

Rhetoric 101. "I don't believe you're a racist, but..." means you're about to imply he's a racist.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=234578

to thesquanderer

[bigtree]

82. you've misused another big word

Definition of irony (MW)

1a : the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning
b : a usually humorous or sardonic literary style or form characterized by irony
c : an ironic expression or utterance
2a(1) : incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result
(2) : an event or result marked by such incongruity
b : incongruity between a situation developed in a drama and the accompanying words or actions that is understood by the audience but not by the characters in the play

— called also dramatic irony, tragic irony
3 : a pretense of ignorance and of willingness to learn from another assumed in order to make the other's false conceptions conspicuous by adroit questioning

— called also Socratic irony

...NONE of these definitions apply.

[Princetonian]

83. I respectfully disagree.

[R B Garr]

97. What double standards. Only Democrats you deem worthy

get a pass on attacks.

[crazytown]

67. "Kamala Harris makes false claim about Trump"

An article that would be welcome at FR or any other RW site - posted here supposedly for advancing the discussion about the Democratic primaries? Those true colors are not beautiful to me.

[Princetonian]

69. This is the title of this CNN FactCheck which is on the front page. I did not change it.

[crazytown]

71. We won't get fooled again.

True Colors. Titles. Unchanged. The question is not what you quote, but what you select.

[Princetonian]

73. Amen.

Nice video but I'm a "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun" fan myself.

[crazytown]

79. 'We don't need your education'

Another Brick in the Wall

[Princetonian]

84. "Can't Blame Me"

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=XfvlcqFlByc

I don't know how to embed videos here. How do you do it?

[crazytown]

86. Depends whether you are using the web or mobile app

For the web, click on the Share arrow underneath a video on the YouTube site, then on the blue COPY text. After that, paste as is into DU, and it comes right up.

[Princetonian]

87. Thanks, crazytown. I'll try it now.

"For the web, click on the Share arrow underneath a video on the YouTube site, then on the blue COPY text. After that, paste as is into DU, and it comes right up."

[Princetonian]

88. There!

[ucrdem]

85. These gaffes are beginning to worry me.

:whistles:

[R B Garr]

95. Yup. I've been missing Barbara Boxer a lot lately.

She was so smart and classy.

[ismnotwasm]

98. Ok what the actual fuck is this?

Jesus fucking Christ.

[Princetonian]

99. It's the truth.

[JoeOtterbein]

101. Interesting;

Harris was not corrected by anyone in the media