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.
Democrats arent losing voters to Republicans because of their superior efforts to spread economic opportunities. Republicans dominate the narrative and are able to get the attention of media. Democrats need to find their own way of doing that which should not involve trying to immitate the Republican focus, style or policies
on what working class was upset about: I thought the post here on ” A Tale of Two Populisms” by Guy Molyneux was pretty accurate. The voters the democrats want back rage is directed at politicians not so much wall street.
There is a problem of being able to trust politicians especially democrats and a belief that the only things that Democrats fight for are what they’re being told (on social media, news sites, commenting sections, newspapers) take down society. How are Democrats going to counter that message?
It feels very military take over out there. Failure in war was because America was too nice to our enemies, failure in society because America was too nice to people who werent “real” Americans and those who made the wrong choices, or so they say. It also explain why working class had to get on welfare, or the biggest shame they can think of. It was the black president’s fault. Its the Jews. Their power is the reason why we’re losing the wars.
White nationalism is supposed to give a purpose to the wars as well.
How are democrats going to change that?
Anyway, the conclusion of that study, which was about the fundmental shift in the geography of opportunity (higher percentage of college educated and economic rate of growth in large cities vs rural) was that Democrats and Republican, including Trump had their differences in who they blamed but both were both at square one in “finding ways to more widely disperse opportunity beyond well-educated workers in a few highly networked urban centers of clustered talent.
I think Democrat party should put the left in their party in charge of finding those policies but the message advertising should be focused on as what is best for all families, if indeed it could be argued that it was.
The left has the energy, they are the fighters. That is what this party needs.
Even so, the democrats are going to be in constant competition with the attention grabbing and dirty fighting of the Republican party, as well as their control of the government and all things media, so creativity is needed as well.
I have to add that there should be some thinking on how can the war industry and our involvement in the world be changed into something that enhances life on this planet rather than destroys it. That involves jobs. The corporations that are profiting from war should be encouraged to do something else in the direction of technological advances. Protecting the environment should be included in that. Star Trek it up.