Update, September 9, 2024: Recent polls are indicating a concerning trend for Vice President Kamala Harris as she faces a tough road against Donald Trump. With the election drawing closer, Harris is struggling to solidify her public image beyond simply being the alternative to Biden or Trump. In a recent televised interview with Dana Bash, her opening statement focused heavily on criticizing the former president’s past decade, including her own term as Vice President, for “diminishing the character and the strength of who we are as Americans — really dividing our nation.” While she alluded to a desire to “turn the page,” voters are seeking more concrete plans for the future, not just a reflection on the past.
The first debate between Harris and Trump is scheduled for tomorrow, September 10th, and all eyes will be on her performance.
Contrary to the prevailing narrative surrounding Kamala Harris, particularly after the Democratic National Convention (DNC), there’s a growing sense that she is facing significant headwinds and could be on a path to defeat reminiscent of 2016. While some might consider this prediction premature, the current political landscape suggests a stark reality. This analysis is a concise assessment of recent developments, reflecting the current situation where the candidate has presented a clear picture of who she is but offered little substance regarding her future actions and policy initiatives. This perspective is informed by ongoing observations and discussions on social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter.
Here are key reasons why Kamala Harris’s campaign is facing significant challenges:
Kamala Harris’s Lack of Defined Policy Positions
The Harris-Walz campaign’s strategy seems to be primarily centered around opposing Donald Trump. However, they are failing to articulate compelling reasons for voters to actively support them. With less than 75 days remaining until the election, the urgency to present a clear and convincing platform is mounting. While the Democratic National Convention (DNC) aimed to generate enthusiasm, the impact of such conventions is often fleeting. As election day approaches, voters are increasingly concerned about tangible issues affecting their daily lives. These concerns are heavily influenced by the escalating costs of essential needs such as housing – both rental and homeownership – and groceries, coupled with a pervasive sense of economic instability.
During her acceptance speech, Harris employed catchy phrases like “an opportunity economy.” However, the substance behind such slogans remains unclear. She vaguely defined it as an economy “where everyone has the chance to compete and a chance to succeed.” The fundamental issue within the American economy is the erosion of safety nets, forcing individuals to constantly seek out “opportunities,” often relying on precarious ventures like viral TikTok fame for potential financial relief to cover basic expenses like rent. Many are navigating life through a patchwork of GoFundMe campaigns. What is needed is not just an “opportunity economy,” but an economy that ensures fundamental needs – housing, food, transportation, and education – are met without requiring individuals to push themselves to exhaustion through multiple jobs and the uncertain hope of future “opportunities.”
On the critical issue of abortion rights, Harris’s stance lacks a distinct agenda. She primarily focuses on criticizing Trump’s anti-abortion stance. Her own commitment is limited to stating, “And when Congress passes a bill to restore reproductive freedom, as president of the United States, I will proudly sign it into law.” This statement conveys a sense of bureaucratic passivity rather than proactive leadership. It lacks a sense of how a Harris presidency would actively champion legislative changes to definitively protect abortion rights – ensuring access that is free, unconditional, and readily available. Reports highlight her past positions but offer no insight into concrete future plans to safeguard reproductive rights.
A significant portion of Harris’s DNC speech focused on her personal history, including family background, her career as a prosecutor, and criticisms of Trump. While personal narratives can be somewhat effective in presidential campaigns, their impact is limited. Trump, much like Harris’s own ascent in California politics, also represents the past. Undoubtedly, it is crucial for voters to understand the potential dangers of another Trump term. However, Harris’s campaign has not effectively conveyed a sense of concrete plans for the future, leaving voters with a sense of vague assurances and a lack of specific policy details. The overarching message seems to be, “Trust me, without needing specifics.” Even sources generally supportive of Harris have noted that voters, including those wary of Trump, are not automatically drawn to Harris. They are seeking clarity on how she will tangibly improve their lives.
Democrats’ Assumption of Voter Loyalty
The emergence of the “Uncommitted movement” initially signaled a significant dissent within the Democratic party regarding the administration’s approach to the Gaza conflict. While there was initial optimism about this movement representing genuine grassroots opposition, concerns arose about its potential dilution and co-option. Unfortunately, these concerns appear to be materializing. Despite being denied a speaking slot at the DNC, the movement released its prepared speech. Notably, the term “genocide” is absent from the text, which instead is filled with generic appeals to patriotism and unity, mirroring the often-bland rhetoric prevalent throughout the DNC. Regarding Gaza, Harris herself repeated discredited claims about sexual violence and affirmed her commitment to “always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself,” signaling a continuation of current policies. Critics have pointed out the Uncommitted movement’s increasingly conciliatory stance.
While critiques of the Uncommitted movement may come from various political perspectives, the DNC and the Harris campaign have made a strategic misstep by alienating and dismissing a significant segment of voters who are highly influential among progressives and left-leaning individuals. The DNC’s televised convention aimed to reach a broad audience, but such spectacles often have a short-lived impact. Conversely, the Uncommitted movement’s protest – highlighting their denied speaking opportunity and their visible presence at the DNC – may have a more lasting impression. This is further amplified by ongoing media coverage in national and international outlets that are drawn to such displays of political friction.
More critically, Harris risks losing votes in the general election by continuing to disregard the concerns of the Uncommitted movement and other voter blocs who disagree with her stance on Gaza. This represents uncharted territory for Democrats, who have historically taken the support of minority voters for granted. They are overlooking the growing alliance between progressive African Americans, other minority communities, and Palestinian-Americans and their allies. The traditional Democratic warning, “If you don’t vote for us, you’ll get Trump,” is losing its effectiveness with these voters. They perceive it as fear-mongering and are increasingly disillusioned by what they see as disregard from both major parties.
Abandonment of Core Liberal and Progressive Values
The remaining elements of Harris’s platform increasingly resemble policies more aligned with a conservative administration. On immigration, she offered minimal specifics, stating vaguely, “We can create an earned pathway to citizenship and secure our border.” The word “can” in this context is doing considerable rhetorical work, implying possibility without commitment. It suggests a lack of concrete action, even though a Vice President possesses considerable influence to shape policy. The issue appears to be a lack of will rather than capability.
Harris expressed greater conviction regarding military strength, stating, “As commander in chief, I will ensure America always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world.” While such rhetoric is common in political speeches, the starkness of the phrase “most lethal fighting force” is noteworthy, lacking any moderating liberal language. This emphasis on military might further distances her from progressive voters seeking a shift away from militaristic approaches.
The Persistent Reality of COVID-19
The ongoing impact of COVID-19, downplayed by official narratives as a mere “summer surge,” is in fact a sustained wave, as numerous experts have consistently warned. While the announcement of a new vaccine may offer some reassurance, significant concerns remain about the pandemic’s long-term effects on the economy, public health, and the election itself. Vaccination rates are declining, with reports indicating a 32% drop among adults. Vaccination is only one component of mitigation; masking and social distancing remain crucial measures. However, public health agencies have relaxed recommendations on masking and isolation, now advising individuals to stay home only until fever-free for 24 hours and with generally improving symptoms. Experts have criticized these revised guidelines as a “reckless anti-public-health policy.”
Alt text: Kamala Harris delivering a speech at the Democratic National Convention, with a focused expression and the American flag visible in the background.
The widespread perception of COVID-19 as “just a cold” and the denial of Long COVID, despite its severe consequences, contribute to lower vaccination rates. The discontinuation of programs providing vaccine access for the uninsured further exacerbates the situation. As infection rates continue to rise, a significant portion of the population will lack protection. The consequences of widespread infection, similar to the impact of removing seatbelts, are predictable and detrimental.
Despite being largely absent from national discourse, COVID-19 remains a significant factor with potential electoral consequences. The ongoing infections are causing widespread disruptions – lost workdays, pressure to return to work while still contagious, and long-term health impacts. While often minimized, the effects of COVID-19 are evident in daily life, from supply chain disruptions to staffing shortages. Most importantly, it represents a widespread health crisis with significant long-term economic implications. The pandemic’s impact on voter turnout and a general sense of disillusionment among a public that feels misled and whose health concerns are dismissed should not be underestimated.
The Harris campaign appears to be underestimating American voters. The DNC, characterized as a “fuzzy, woke Triumph of the Will,” featured figures from the past and conveyed an attitude of entitlement, suggesting voters should support Harris simply because there is no alternative. This mirrors the approach that contributed to Hillary Clinton’s defeat in 2016 – the argument of being the last defense against a catastrophic outcome. Voters rejected that premise then, and Harris’s campaign, with its perceived arrogance and lack of concrete plans, risks a similar outcome. While campaign events may create a positive atmosphere, these “vibes” alone are unlikely to secure a presidential victory and may well signal the end of her chances.
Update, August 29: A week after the DNC, concrete policy details from the Harris-Walz campaign remain absent from their website. Meanwhile, COVID-19 infection rates are escalating, with reports emerging of infections linked to the convention itself and school closures due to outbreaks. Ironically, responses often prioritize surface cleaning over effective measures like masking and ventilation. COVID-19, though ignored by both parties, could significantly influence the upcoming elections.
Currently, the Harris-Walz campaign has yet to articulate clear policy distinctions from Trump or improvements over the Biden administration. While predictions of a Harris defeat may be met with resistance, the campaign’s trajectory offers little evidence of shifting voter sentiment in her favor, suggesting a continued underestimation of voter concerns.
See also:
“On Joe Biden and COVID.”
On Cat Ladies and Culture Wars
“Hillary Clinton Needs to Retire.”
On Palestine and Liberalism
No, Not Pete Buttigieg
“Some Quick Updates and an Introduction.”
Critical Race Theory Won’t Save Us
Thomas Friedman Is a Dinosaur, and a New World Is Here
On Palestine, Israel and the Failure of Liberalism, and a Quick Update
