It’s pretty obvious Kamala Harris’s candidacy changes the 2024 presidential race more than a little, and I wrote at New York about one avenue she has for victory that might have eluded Joe Biden:
During her brief run for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2019, Kamala Harris was widely believed to be emulating Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign strategy. She treated South Carolina, the first primary state with a substantial Black electorate, as the site of her potential breakthrough. But she front-loaded resources into Iowa to prepare for that breakthrough by reassuring Black voters that she could win in the largely white jurisdiction. She had the added advantage of being from the large state of California, where the primary had just been moved up to Super Tuesday (March 3). For a thrilling moment, after her commanding performance in a June 2019 debate, Harris seemed on track to pull off this feat, threatening Joe Biden’s hold on South Carolina in the polls and surging in Iowa. But neither she nor Cory Booker, who also relied on the Obama precedent, could displace Biden as the favorite of Black voters or strike gold in the crowded Iowa field. Out of money and luck, Harris dropped out before voters voted.
Now Kamala Harris is the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee for 2024 without having to navigate any primaries. But she still faces some key strategic decisions. Joe Biden was consistently trailing Donald Trump in the polls in no small part because he was underperforming among young and non-white voters, the very heart of the much-discussed Obama coalition. Can Harris recoup some of these potential losses without sacrificing support elsewhere in the electorate? That is a question she must address at the very beginning of her general-election campaign.
There’s a chance that Harris can inject a bit of the Obama “hope and change” magic into a Democratic ticket that had previously felt like a desperate effort to defend an unpopular administration led by a low-energy incumbent, as Ron Brownstein suggests in The Atlantic:
“Polls have shown that a significant share of Americans doubt the mental capacity of Trump, who has stumbled through his own procession of verbal flubs, memory lapses, and incomprehensible tangents during stump speeches and interviews to relatively little attention in the shadow of Biden’s difficulties. Particularly if Harris picks a younger running mate, she could top a ticket that embodies the generational change that many voters indicated they were yearning for when facing a Trump-Biden rematch …
“In the best-case scenario for this line of thinking, Harris could regain ground among the younger voters and Black and Hispanic voters who have drifted away from Biden since 2020. At the same time, she could further expand Democrats’ already solid margins among college-educated women who support abortion rights.”
Team Trump seems to believe it can offset these potential gains by depicting Harris as a “California radical” and a symbol of diversity who might alienate the older white voters with whom Biden had some residual strength. Obama overcame similar race-saturated appeals in 2008, but he had a lot of help from a financial collapse and an unpopular war presided over by the party of his opponent.
Following Obama’s path has major strategic implications in terms of the battleground map. Any significant improvement over Biden’s performance among Black, Latino, and under-30 voters might put Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, and North Carolina — very nearly conceded to Trump in recent weeks — back into play. But erosion of Biden’s support among older and/or non-college-educated white voters could create potholes in his narrow Rust Belt path to victory in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
These strategic choices could definitely affect Harris’s choice of a running-mate, not just in terms of potentially picking a veep from a battleground state, but as a way of amplifying the shift produced by Biden’s withdrawal. Brownstein even thinks Harris might consider following Bill Clinton’s 1992 example of doubling down on her own strengths:
“The other option that energizes many Democrats would be for Harris to take the bold, historic option of selecting another woman: Whitmer. That would be a greater gamble, but a possible model would be 1992, when Bill Clinton chose Al Gore as his running mate; Gore was, like him, a centrist Baby Boomer southerner—rather than an older D.C. hand. ‘I love Josh Shapiro and I think he would be a great VP candidate, but I would double down’ with Whitmer, [Democratci consultant Mike] Mikus told me. ‘I don’t think you have to go with a moderate white guy. I think you can be bold [with a pick] that electrifies your base.’ I heard similar views from several consultants.”
Whitmer’s expressed disinterest in the veepstakes may take that particular option off the table, but the broader point remains: Harris does not have to — and may not be able to — simply adopt Biden’s strategy and tweak it slightly. She may be able to contemplate gains in the electorate that were unimaginable for an 81-year-old white male incumbent. But the strategic opportunity to follow Obama’s path to the White House will first depend on Harris’s ability to refocus persuadable voters on Trump’s shaky record, bad character, and extremist agenda. Biden could not do that after the debate debacle of June 27. His successor must begin taking the battle to the former president right now.
Agreed, that he must use the truth. But in a sense he already does, and it does not work. What I would add to this is that he must use the truth, and do so with as much venom and punch as possible.
Lies and truth are merely types of weapons, you see. But like any weapon, they can be used well, and they can be used poorly.
You can lightly jab and tickle someone with either lies or the truth. Or you can bludgen them relentlessly into the ground with either one of them.
The problem with the American electorate is that they are lazy, and not very bright. So, they will gravitate towards the candidate that will beat people to a bloody pulp with lies, more so than they will gravitate towards a candidate who just take small, glancing blows with the truth.
So the key is to use the truth without shame..the truth all of us down on the ground floor of the campaigns already know…McCain is a bad tempered, lying and capitulating old coward, beholden to bigots. His running mate not only shows his poor judgment, but also is a two faced beauty queen with no record, no experience, and who is in favor of views so extreme that even most of the American public is against them in the polls. (For what they maybe worth.)
If we are going to use the truth… let’s use it. Don’t preface it, as Biden did the other day, with calling Palin a tough smart politician with a compelling story. She is none of those things. Preface the truth with, “a former beauty queen who has no rights to claim allegiance to America when she addressed a secessionist political convention….a politician who has lied about her views on the bridge to nowhere, Barack Obama, and her frigid religious views on pre-marital sex.”
Or something to that effect. But we all know she is not compelling, or smart or anything. We are now she is trash. We need to just say it, over and over again. You know, like the Republicans do as they win election after election after election after election…
Why are Democrats Afraid to Speak the Truth?
The Democratic campaign enjoyed a spectacular and spirited convention climaxed by a phenomenal speech by Senator Obama. The McCain campaign followed with a phenom of its own with the addition of Governor Sarah Palin to the ticket. Prior to that spontaneous decision, John McCain was experiencing difficulty attracting an audience. In fact, with the prearranged agenda including Bush and Cheney, they would likely had difficulty filling the convention hall. This situation was remedied by the creation of the John McCain traveling burlesque show. Hopefully, the same people who support Sarah Palin are those who supported Sanjaya right up until it was time to declare him an American Idol. While the Republican propaganda machine is frantically fabricating a history for Palin, scrambling like canaries in a cage startled by the appearance of a cat, Barack Obama himself appears tired, bored, deflated, and even defeated. It’s time for the Democratic Party to employ a novel strategy in the political arena. It’s time to tell the truth.
It is a foregone conclusion that multi-national corporate interests own the federal government lock, stock, and barrel, with Big Oil as the majority shareholder. George Bush is a president with no leverage over these entities in fact; he invited them to the party. When Bush proclaims, “we must protect American interests abroad,” it is these corporate interests to which he refers. The lobbyists who represent these interests have written any and all legislation passed within the last eight years. The Republican hierarchy has embedded within it, individuals in key positions who steer all government policies to favor these groups. If John McCain and the Republican Party remain in power, this situation will not change. Furthermore, if some tragedy were to befall McCain, Palin has left no doubt in anyone’s mind that she is completely capable of reading the commands issued by these individuals. While the McCain/Palin Campaign portrays itself as the reform ticket, these same multi-nationals are pouring money into the effort directly and through 527 provisions to insure its success. This phenomenon can be compared to the scenario in which a drug kingpin who has already bought-off key players in law enforcement and the judiciary, finances the campaign of the ‘law and order’ candidate who is secretly also on his payroll.
This reality is understood throughout the world (except among the religious right which is, by the way, neither) so much so that the European Union was formed in large part to insulate governments on that continent from this same corruption. Any and all candidates running for political office in democracies throughout Europe who have ties to our corrupt administration are handily voted down. The impact of this unified agreement has resulted in a blockade of many American products to a consumer base of nearly half a billion and the subsequent loss of countless American jobs. The distrust of American enterprise has facilitated a rapid increase in the demand for Russian oil and natural gas causing the current tension between the oil friendly Bush Administration and the neo-capitalist Russian government. It is no wonder that the Republican Party will never support successful programs for public education. It is to its advantage for its core electorate to remain oblivious to its true priorities and their consequences. Anyone interested in the future of these great United States must focus on the interview in which Dick Cheney openly admitted that the Republican Party, “will say what we need to, to get elected,” and then pursue, with reckless indifference, the policies agreed to prior to the campaign.
Barack Obama must reinvigorate his campaign by simply implementing the truth. In plain terminology, Obama must educate the American people in how it works, how it got this way, and how it can be fixed. He must loudly proclaim that this Republican Administration has not only undermined the Democratic process through trickery and fraud, but has nullified the legislative process by expanding the powers of the presidency which has led to the paralysis of Congress. America is not only crying for change but is also starving for truth. Somebody has to go first.