As the 2024 presidential election approaches, Vice President Kamala Harris finds herself navigating a labyrinth of political strategy and public perception. Historical precedents and contemporary political dynamics indicate that the success of her campaign may very well hinge on whether she maintains her current course or adjusts her approach to rectify unpopular positions.
During my tenure as a political consultant, I learned that steadfastly adhering to a campaign strategy often yields better results than frequently changing tactics. The fundamental strategy typically revolves around highlighting a candidate’s strengths and framing the election in a way that resonates with the majority of voters. This simplicity, however, is perpetually disrupted by unforeseen events such as media controversies, polling surprises, and unexpected maneuvers from the opposition.
Now observing from the sidelines, it seems Harris’s campaign might be at a critical juncture. Following President Joe Biden’s decision to step back in July, Harris’s strategy has focused on attacking former President Donald Trump’s character flaws, galvanizing Democratic enthusiasm, and showcasing her personable demeanor. However, the glaring challenge lies in addressing policy issues.
The Biden-Harris administration’s record on inflation and immigration has faced significant backlash. Furthermore, Harris’s past advocacy for extreme “woke” policies during her 2020 presidential run remains a controversial chapter. Her stances on banning fracking, decriminalizing illegal border crossings, abolishing private health insurance, mandating gun buybacks, slashing ICE funding, and providing taxpayer-funded transgender surgeries to detained migrants are far removed from mainstream voter preferences.
To mitigate these potentially damaging associations, Harris has attempted to reposition herself, presenting as a candidate of change focused on the future. This has been echoed by her running mate, Tim Walz, and reinforced by a largely sympathetic media that has chosen not to scrutinize her past positions rigorously. For instance, in her rare interview with CNN’s Dana Bash, Harris sidestepped inquiries about her evolving stances, a tactic that has so far yielded mixed results.
Despite temporary gains, evidenced by polls showing her slightly ahead of Trump, the overall strategy remains precarious. The RealClearPolitics averages indicate Trump leads in states with a significant number of electoral votes, and independent analysts like Nate Silver offer Harris no more than a 53% chance of winning the Electoral College. These figures are far from reassuring, especially considering Hillary Clinton’s previous 71% chance before her unexpected loss in 2016.
Signs of unease within Harris’s campaign are evident as she undertakes interviews with friendly media, which poses a risk of inadvertently revealing her vulnerability. Independent analyst Mark Halperin notes a more pessimistic sentiment among Democratic strategists despite relatively favorable public polls. The Republicans, sensing an opportunity, could capitalize on this apprehension. They stand to gain by filling in the gaps left by Harris’s obfuscation, reminding voters of her extreme policy positions through targeted television ads and other media efforts.
There’s no shortage of material for such a campaign. For instance, video evidence of Harris supporting government-funded transgender surgeries for inmates or her participation in anti-deportation chants with Jussie Smollett can be leveraged to underscore her radical past. The challenge for the Republican camp will be to frame these issues in a way that highlights the disconnect between Harris’s positions and mainstream American values.
Historically, ignoring or dismissing inconvenient truths, as Democrats did with Michael Dukakis in 1988, has proven disastrous. A more prudent approach might have been an early admission of error and a commitment to more moderate stances moving forward. Harris’s team opted against this, relying instead on positive sentiments and media complicity—a strategy now appearing fraught with uncertainty.
As we edge closer to election day, the critical question remains: Will the Harris campaign stick to its current trajectory, or will it recognize the need for a course correction to address voter concerns? The answer may well determine the outcome of one of the most contentious elections in recent history. This strategic dilemma mirrors the broader ideological divide in America, emphasizing the necessity for clarity, honesty, and alignment of political promises with the electorate’s expectations.