Staff Reports
Ana Navarro has made headlines again, but this time for her risible reaction to the recent Trump-Harris debate. During a discussion on CNN, the self-styled political expert declared that she heard laughter at Donald Trump’s remarks, which apparently was a “first” in her long-standing career. While trying to drum up support for her claims, she bombastically noted the plethora of memes and TikToks flooding the internet, confident that such things encapsulated genuine debate reactions. It would appear that Navarro believes Twitter is the ultimate oracle of public sentiment, unphased by the fact that those “laughing” might just be mocking her.
Her co-panelist, Olivia Nuzzi, provided a brief reality check, reminding Navarro that most normal folks aren’t crowding around TVs, drink in hand, to watch presidential debates. Oddly enough, while Navarro highlighted that viewers were laughing, those who truly matter—the undecided voters—came to a much different conclusion. Many raised eyebrows at Vice President Kamala Harris’s vague responses, signaling their disappointment with the lack of solid answers that could actually sway them in favor of her candidacy.
Ana Navarro Embarrassed After Her Debate 'Analysis' Is Ripped To Shreds By Liberal CNN Guest…https://t.co/cEsGwapIk0
— JOSH DUNLAP (@JDunlap1974) September 12, 2024
In a delightful twist, Navarro’s obsession with memes didn’t help her convince many that her perspective was accurate. While she claimed that “so many debate watchers” were laughing at Trump, it turned out that average Americans were more concerned about Harris’s evasive rhetoric than how many TikTok dances were trending. The actual audience for political debates, or anyone with a modicum of common sense, seemed to have tuned in to gauge real policy discussions rather than Navarrow’s imagined viral moments.
Despite what Navarro perceives as a liberal victory in social media terms, undecided voters were left scratching their heads. Responses from some of them suggested that a significant number of people were more engaged in unpacking actual governance than enjoying the post-debate highlights reel. One interviewee noted they were still in the dark about Harris’s platform, while another expressed clear discontent with her avoidance of substantive discussion, suggesting that the debate felt more like an exercise in pointing fingers at Trump than articulating a viable alternative.
Navarro isn’t new to the political commentary game, but her criticisms often come off as hyperbole with a touch of melodrama. Having expressed indignation at Trump’s support among Latino voters in the past, one wonders if she is simply grasping at straws while riding the liberal wave of discontent. As she continues to dismiss the voices of those ‘swing voters’ in favor of an all-out TikTok takeover, it may soon dawn on her that memes can’t win elections—or can they? Only time will tell if the next data point in Navarro’s analysis will finally reflect what most conservatives already know: engaging, down-to-earth dialogue wins over memes any day of the week.
