While rightly touting some benefits of the ACA and Medicare drug pricing reforms, Harris sets up a weak man version of Trump's position to easily dismiss, and takes a motte-and-bailey approach regarding gun policies that obscures her more restrictive underlying stance.

1. weak man via cherry picking • Just as she did in her interview with Dana Bash, Harris boasts of lowering drug prices in Medicare with no mention of Trump's related efforts, making it sound as if Trump made no action in this area.

 Donald Trump said he was going to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices. He never did. We did.

Not mentioned is that Trump signed an executive order in 2020 known as the "Most Favored Nation" rule, that would guarantee Medicare the lowest price paid by other developed countries. The order got tied up in legal challenges and was never implemented, but it shows that Trump was acting within his executive powers to try to reduce drug prices in the Medicare system.

Harris also omits the fact that Medicare has so far negotiated prices for only ten drugs -- though they are "blockbuster" drugs that account for about 20% of Medicare drug costs. Her phrasing makes it sound as if Medicare is generally negotiating all of its drug prices, which is not the case today.

The combination of these omitted facts makes Harris appear stronger and Trump weaker on Medicare drug pricing than if the entire context is filled in.

2. motte-and-bailey fallacy • Harris is right to respond to Trump's distortion of her position on guns, but her response is also misleading in its own way.

And then this business about taking everyone's guns away. Tim Walz and I are both gun owners. We're not taking anybody's guns away.

The phrase "anybody's guns" includes some people's assault weapons. In the past, Harris has called for mandatory buyback of these, but under the Biden-Harrris administration, that goal has not been made a priority. Instead, the administration seeks prohibition of the sale of assault weapons. Existing owners of assault weapons would be able to keep theirs, at least for now.

A motte-and-bailey fallacy applies when someone holds a strong, controversial position but retreats to a less controversial, easily defensible position when challenged. In the case of Harris and gun control, the motte (defensible position) would be her claim that “we are not taking anyone’s guns away,” while the bailey (more controversial position) would involve restricting the sale and transfer of certain firearms like assault weapons, leading to a practical reduction in gun rights over time.

It's true that saying "we're not taking anyone's guns away" can technically be accurate in a narrow sense. Policies like an assault weapons ban (which prohibits future sales of certain firearms but allows existing owners to keep them) or even a mandatory buyback (which compensates owners for turning in their firearms) do not necessarily involve outright confiscation. However, these policies certainly restrict access to firearms by preventing future purchases or transfers, and some gun rights advocates argue this amounts to a form of indirect confiscation or infringement.

This strategy allows Harris, and others who take similar positions, to avoid the politically toxic perception of outright gun confiscation while still advocating for significant restrictions. It does create a tension between the broad claim of "not taking guns away" and the actual impact of such policies, which could limit access to certain firearms in the long term. The split in interpretation often boils down to the difference between ownership and access —while current owners may not have their guns taken, future access to these weapons would be curtailed under such policies.