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.
So basically, someone giving a great speech in front of roaring crowds, despite being nothing but a former PTA member, who left before all of her kids went through school, mayor of a small town, (with the aid of a city administrator which no other mayor ever needed) and holder of one of the weakest gubernatorial offices in the nation, in alleged “command” of one of the smallest National Guard Contingencies in the country equates with being qualified to be president of the United States.
Contrary wise, someone giving a great speech in front of roaring crowds, having once gone to Harvard Law School, been editor of the Review, a community organizer, an Illinois State Senator, a published author, and United States Senator, and actually being elected, (instead of appointed) to the ticket, is all style and no substance.
I guess that would be the line you would have to tow, if you were a Jesus freak that screamed, out of both of your faces, about the sin of pre-marital sex, and the folly of women working out of the home while their kids are off having sex… until a gun-toting MILF shows up and gives a mean spirited, elitist speech at your convention. Then, and only then, is the Christian value of forgiveness actually exercised, and the rhetoric of “Jesus wants you to stay at home, and teach your teens the wonders of celibacy” overthrown.
I guess that would be the line to tow, if you are more concerned about defining a red-blooded American as someone who kills prisoners, but forbids abortion, than you are about defending decisions to try to ban books, address and bid good luck to the convention of a political party that holds Alaska’s succession from the United States as a possibility, and use the Governor’s mansion as a place to settle family disputes.
In experience vs. inexperience, there is no argument. In style vs. substance, there is no argument. In humble beginnings and American values, there is no argument. Barack Obama clearly wins in all three. But if I were to give the benefit of the absolute doubt, the best I, (and anyone that is more worried about logic than they are Bible thumping and ass kicking) can say is that Palin and Obama have both have sufficient experience, substance, and American values imbued into their stories.
Or you can choose to deny that either of them has any of that. But you can be nothing but a stupefying hypocrite to conclude that PTA meetings, small town elections and official titles in the National Guard is any more impressive than law school, book writing, and stints in two legislatures.
But that would require an intellectual honesty that Republicans in general, and Sarah Palin in particular do not, or will not possess.
You said, “The reaction from the Democratic base hasn’t gotten as much airtime (it is the GOP convention, after all), but I’m going to wager it is just as strong.”
The media hasn’t given Democratic critiques any airtime (although they gave Republicans double in the D convention), see: Media Mattes report:http://mediamatters.org/items/200809030022