We’ve been away from home for most of the period since President Joe Biden ended his campaign for a second term; during our time away, Vice President Kamala Harris has secured the endorsement of enough delegates to the Democratic Party’s Chicago August convention to be the party’s nominee. While we haven’t been in a position to digest the news in any great detail, that has perhaps made it easier to focus on overarching circumstances.
One factor in the race that hasn’t changed: it will be decided by the swing states’ moderate Republicans and conservative independents.
Another has, diametrically: I’ve been stunned at the enthusiasm level generated by Ms. Harris’ candidacy among progressives, liberals, minorities, the young, and a segment of women voters. Ms. Harris has undeniable charm and vitality – I noted here years ago that she has the best smile I’ve seen in politics since former President Jimmy Carter’s – which may well ultimately drive a decisive segment of female, young and minority voters to the voting booth. (Note: in a race promising to be this close, every Democratic constituency will need to be decisive.)
Mr. Biden’s withdrawal and Ms. Harris’ nomination have enabled Democrats, if they are adept, to turn voters’ focus back to where it needs to be for them to win the White House and the Congress: on Donald Trump and the MAGA movement.
Ms. Harris has the opportunity to turn this presidential contest into the Year of the Woman. Given the seething abortion issue, the time is now. She has unquestionably been an effective advocate for women’s reproductive rights. Some 70% of Americans reportedly believe that a woman should have the right to abort a fetus at least through the first trimester; those rights have (obviously) been curtailed by Mr. Trump’s Supreme Court picks. His current position – “Let the states choose” – does nothing to mollify those seeking to preserve reproductive rights [particularly given the increasingly restrictive views taken by conservative state legislatures and courts, reaching even to In Vitro Fertilization (“IVF”)], while antagonizing many Pro-Lifers as waffling; this is a gaping political vulnerability for Mr. Trump that he won’t be able to run away from. As if we needed more affronts to women: Mr. Trump has been found civilly liable for sexual assault, and has in effect been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of cheating on his wife with an adult film star.
(An aside: I wonder whether Ms. Harris might not also benefit from buyer’s remorse among some moderately conservative swing state suburban women who voted for Mr. Trump in 2016. The 2016 Democratic Nominee, former U.S. Secretary of State, U.S. NY Sen. and First Lady Hillary Clinton, was unquestionably more competent than Mr. Trump, but for a large segment of the electorate, wasn’t likeable. I wonder whether some of these women who simply didn’t like Ms. Clinton and voted for Mr. Trump sufficiently rue their 2016 votes that this time, they’ll vote for Ms. Harris.)
Mr. Trump’s threat to democracy. Swing state swing voters know he lost, know he’s lying about it, and know he incited the January 6th attack on our nation’s Capitol in an attempt to overturn the valid results of a fair (albeit close) election. They know he is pledging if elected to pardon those who stormed the Capitol. They know (or can be reminded) that Mr. Trump has called for termination of the Constitution to overturn the result of an election he knows lost, and that his partisan judicial selections (talk about rigging) have ensured that he will not go on trial for his alleged actions before the election. I confess that I don’t know why Mr. Trump’s traitorous activities aren’t alone sufficient reason for him to be defeated in landslide that would dwarf those won by Presidents Roosevelt, Johnson, and Reagan – for me, it is the issue – but it is one that is reportedly most telling with older voters, who seem to grasp better than younger voters that if necessary we can survive an inept president but not a determined dictator. It is with this electoral segment that Mr. Biden can most help Ms. Harris.
Mr. Trump’s obvious subservience to Russian President Vladimir Putin, and his (at best) lukewarm support for NATO. His comment that he won’t necessarily defend a NATO nation attacked by Russia is decidedly unpopular. Ms. Harris can credibly argue that after all the Ukrainians’ sacrifice, Mr. Putin will conquer Ukraine if Mr. Trump is reelected. I saw a poll that 88% of Americans detest Mr. Putin. You can’t get 88% of Americans to agree on what day of the week it is.
Mr. Trump has indicated that Social Security and Medicare need to be revised. These programs are incredibly popular, as emotive with seniors as abortion is with women and the young. (Although Social Security and Medicare do need to be revised, what matters here is saving democracy; Ms. Harris wins the issue by pledging to protect Social Security and Medicare benefits.) He also continues to criticize the Affordable Care Act, although it is now popular with Americans of all political stripes.
Mr. Trump’s age, mental fitness and competence. There is more than enough tape of Mr. Trump mixing up names and people – most famously, his confusing former SC Gov. and U.S. U.N. Amb. Nikki Haley with former U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi when recounting the events of January 6th – to place doubt upon his mental acuity among open-minded voters. If Democrats remind voters that there were at least 500,000 unnecessary deaths attributable to Mr. Trump’s mishandling of the COVID crisis, that at one point he idiotically suggested that injecting bleach into COVID sufferers might help them, and that approximately 40 of his 44 Cabinet members refuse to endorse him, this will stir doubts among swing voters. Add to that the antics of the last Congress: it became clear with MAGAs in control of the House of Representatives during the last term that they can’t run a two-car funeral.
Republican Vice Presidential Nominee U.S. OH Sen. J.D. Vance. It is certainly beginning to look like Mr. Trump made a strategic error in selecting Mr. Vance as his running mate. The general rule of presidential campaign running mate selection is that a good pick won’t help the campaign, but a bad one will hurt (although a comment below will make clear that I think that there can be exceptions to the rule 🙂 ). At this point, Mr. Vance seems the most striking example of conventional wisdom since Democratic Presidential Nominee U.S. SD Sen. George McGovern picked U.S. MO Sen. Thomas Eagleton as his running mate in 1972. (After Mr. Eagleton was selected, it was revealed that he had been hospitalized for depression and undergone electroshock treatment. Mr. Eagleton was dropped from the ticket. No matter how unfair some might consider it today, the revelation of Mr. Eagleton’s condition and treatment was the death knell for a campaign already an overwhelming underdog against then President Richard Nixon.) From the outset, I doubted that Mr. Vance, an Ohioan who has without doubt risen from very impoverished beginnings and is author of the 2016 best seller, Hillbilly Elegy, would broaden the Republican ticket’s appeal among the grievance-driven in the pivotal swing states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Who in this demographic who wasn’t already going to vote for Mr. Trump will now vote for Mr. Trump because of Mr. Vance? Nobody. I also thought Mr. Vance’s unquestioned slavishness to Mr. Trump would be a negative with voters who want a Vice President who, if forced to choose between the President and the Constitution, will be loyal to the Constitution. Now, Mr. Vance’s comments about “childless cat ladies” and pronouncements that the votes of those citizens without children should count less than those of voters with children (not only repulsive, but about the politically dumbest things I’ve ever heard from a politician) seem likely to alienate pivotal swing state swing voters. He is sounding notes perhaps closer to political eulogy than elegy. (I would love to claim credit for this play on words, but it was suggested by someone very, very close to me 😉 ).
Even on issues which should favor Mr. Trump, Ms. Harris and Democrats seemingly have effective arguments to blunt MAGA advances:
On crime, Ms. Harris’ experience as a prosecutor can be favorably contrasted with Mr. Trump’s 34 felony convictions (“I believe in juries”).
On the economy, job numbers under the Biden Administration have been historic, and if the Federal Reserve lowers interest rates by September as now predicted, that will be an objective marker that inflation is dropping. A rate cut may send the stock market even higher. [I understand that most swing voters hold stocks (directly or mutually) in taxable and/or retirement accounts.] Mr. Trump will scream that the Fed is biased against him, but Ms. Harris can point out that he first appointed Fed Chair Jerome Powell.
On the emotive issue of immigration, Ms. Harris has already taken the tack I would have advised: by pledging to sign the very conservative bipartisan immigration bill that Mr. Biden would have signed and Mr. Trump openly killed because he wanted the campaign issue. Ms. Harris’ campaign line speaks for itself: “‘Blame me,’ he said. Well, blame him. It’s his fault.”
Feeling good? Now, to some painful realities.
While the emotional high Democrats are currently riding can be expected to continue through a well-orchestrated convention which will conclude August 22, the next three weeks will also give Mr. Trump and his team, currently in strategic disarray given Mr. Biden’s departure from the race, time to determine the most effective ways to attack Ms. Harris. Make no mistake: he and they will figure it out and will be ready to go by Labor Day. They will be ugly, they will have no scruples, they will bar no holds. Since the Democrats have the more popular side of most substantive issues, they will attack her gender, her race, her intelligence, her competence, her disposition. Mr. Trump’s strategists include two professionals who “Swift Boated” Democratic Presidential Nominee and then U.S. MA Sen. John Kerry in 2004, somehow causing the average voter to conclude Mr. Kerry – a decorated Vietnam veteran – was somehow either cowardly or incompetent during his service while then President George W. Bush – who had ordered an Iraq invasion to secure weapons of mass destruction that were never there – was a heroic military figure. Never forget: they are very good at what they do.
If Mr. Trump determines that his pick of Mr. Vance was the egregious blunder it now appears, look for him to blame Mr. Vance, unceremoniously dump him, and select a replacement who will be more reassuring to the swing state undecideds.
Although MAGAs are never shy about sheer fabrication, they will have some genuine kernels to pick with Ms. Harris. I commented in these pages in August, 2020, when Mr. Biden selected Ms. Harris as his running mate: “the internet search, ‘Willie Brown Kamala Harris.’” Somewhat inexplicably to me, in the last campaign Mr. Trump and his team never sought to exploit the fact that Ms. Harris’ political ascent began at or about the time of her undisputed amorous relationship with Mr. Brown, the extremely powerful Speaker of California’s state Assembly 30 years her senior. I understand that the alt-right media is now energetically pursuing the issue. (One might expect Mr. Trump to be reticent here, inasmuch as he has been legally adjudged a sexual assaulter and an adulterer, but … nah. Republicans never shrink from hypocrisy, and will leverage any gender double standard they can.)
I also commented in that long-ago note: “Ms. Harris’ oft-repeated phrase during the Democratic presidential debates – ‘I will prosecute the case against Donald Trump’ – brought to my mind another potential weakness. Any trial lawyer on a major case … attempts to conceptualize the appropriate response to … whatever might come up at trial. A daunting task – but even in complex litigation, the variables are finite. In a presidential campaign, the variables are infinite, and cannot all be anticipated. … While Ms. Harris is good when scripted, I saw her clutch several times in the early months of the [2020] presidential campaign when reporters asked her questions she did not expect. In one of the [2020 Democratic Presidential Candidate] debates, Ms. Harris blanked when [challenged in an unexpected way by] U.S. HI Rep. Tulsi Gabbard … How she holds up will be pivotal to the Democratic ticket’s chances.” While the Vice President has unquestionably grown as an official and as a candidate over the last four years, there will still be the potential for her to clutch. Although right now, Mr. Trump is indicating that he doesn’t want to debate her, if he finds himself trailing, he’ll change his mind – and I think he’ll be a formidable debate opponent for her, because she won’t be able to entirely anticipate what he will say; he is the master of the lie and the unexpected.
There’s credence to the claim that Ms. Harris doesn’t have a great track record as an administrator. Her 2020 presidential campaign was a shambles: started with a flourish and a lot of money, but lacked a coherent strategy and chain of command, succumbed to infighting, and ran out of cash. Expect the Trump Team to find disgruntled former Harris staffers and exploit their complaints. (I know; Mr. Trump ran the most incoherent Administration in U.S. history. Won’t matter. See, above: Republican hypocrisy. 😉 ).
The Democrats still face difficult Electoral College math. Current polls show Ms. Harris trailing Mr. Trump by four point in Pennsylvania – the swing state that is closest to politically existential for her – and with a smaller lead over Mr. Trump in Wisconsin than Mr. Biden had. [The fact that Wisconsin is the only swing state in which she is currently faring worse against Mr. Trump than Mr. Biden (2 point lead v. Mr. Biden’s 3 point cushion) is no surprise to any Badger Stater; notwithstanding former President Barack Obama’s two victories in the state, Mr. Obama was an exceptional political athlete, and this state’s views on race are decidedly more charged now than then. Mr. Trump always does better in Wisconsin on Election Day than he scores in pre-election polls.] Ms. Harris doesn’t need Pennsylvania’s 19 Electoral College votes if she wins Georgia (16) (the one Republican-controlled state where the Republican officialdom clearly has no love for Mr. Trump 😉 ) or North Carolina (16) and Nevada (7), and doesn’t need Wisconsin’s 10 Electoral College votes if she wins Arizona (11) (where it appears that there will be an abortion rights referendum on the ballot), but paths outside the Blue Wall States are arguably still dicier. PA Gov. Josh Shapiro still appears to me the right choice as her running mate (I predict that the progressives currently voicing objections to Mr. Shapiro’s staunch pro-Israel views in the Israeli-Hamas conflict will nonetheless support Ms. Harris if she chooses Mr. Shapiro), with Mr. Shapiro and U.S. PA Sen. John Fetterman – who looks much more MAGA than Mr. Vance – responsible for securing the Keystone State.
MAGAs are implacable. We were in the center part of Wisconsin when we were away; Trump signs outnumbered Democratic signs 10 to 1; there is no way that anyone who was committed to Mr. Trump before Mr. Biden withdrew will be shifting his/her support to Ms. Harris.
Ms. Harris and her running mate will make mistakes. We don’t know what they will be, but rest assured: they will make mistakes.
All of which is to say what you already know: it’s going to be close.
I was honored, after President Biden announced his withdrawal from the race, how many friends and family, including those who rarely comment in these pages or don’t follow them regularly, who emailed or texted me about my reaction to this sea change in the race. At that point, I indicated that Ms. Harris wasn’t the candidate I’d put up against Mr. Trump if I had a blank drawing board (from my Wisconsin perspective, I would have preferred either U.S. MN Sen. Amy Klobuchar or MI Gov. Gretchen Whitmer), but was encouraged by the excitement that the Vice President had evoked. I now think it’s clear that Ms. Harris is creating greater enthusiasm among minorities and the young than either Ms. Klobuchar or Ms. Whitmer would have generated, and her campaign is arguably laying out alternate Electoral College paths for the Democratic ticket through Georgia, Arizona, Nevada, and possibly North Carolina that probably wouldn’t have been open to either Ms. Klobuchar or Ms. Whitmer. Ms. Harris’ deft early conduct of her campaign and the reaction to her candidacy have given me real hope that we have a real chance to save our democracy. I had, frankly, been in despair; although Mr. Biden is a good man who has done a great job, it had looked to me that if he stayed in the race that we were going to give up our republic without a fight.
Any baseball fan will tell you that it’s a long season. No championship is won in the season’s early months; you simply hope to position yourself to make a run, be within striking distance of the top, on Labor Day. Those who support Ms. Harris should not be misled by the excitement for her candidacy that they see in liberal media outlets; I think that if the election was held today, Mr. Trump would win. That said, I would submit that Ms. Harris is within striking distance. Given the excitement she has generated, the evident danger to democracy that Mr. Trump presents to the open-minded, the many substantive issues upon which she holds the more popular position, and the very deep antipathy Mr. Trump evokes among those who oppose him, my gut tells me that if she plays well the rest of the way, she has a real chance to get there — that she can win.
It’s a long season. The most crucial games are yet to be played. We’ll see what happens.
McCoy's Noise 