One very central dynamic in the recent saga of Democratic anxiety over Joe Biden’s chances against Donald Trump, given the weaknesses he displayed in his first 2024 debate, has been the role of his understudy, Vice-President Kamala Harris. My colleague Gabriel Debenedetti explained the problem nearly two years ago as the “Kamala Harris conundrum”:
“Top party donors have privately worried to close Obama allies that they’re skeptical of Harris’s prospects as a presidential candidate, citing the implosion of her 2020 campaign and her struggles as VP. Jockeying from other potential competitors, like frenemy Gavin Newsom, suggests that few would defer to her if Biden retired. Yet Harris’s strength among the party’s most influential voters nonetheless puts her in clear pole position.”
The perception that Harris is too unpopular to pick up the party banner if Biden dropped it, but too well-positioned to be pushed aside without huge collateral damage, was a major part of the mindset of political observers when evaluating Democratic options after the debate. But now fresher evidence of Harris’s public standing shows she’s just as viable as many of the candidates floated in fantasy scenarios about an “open convention,” “mini-primary,” or smoke-filled room that would sweep away both parts of the Biden-Harris ticket.
For a good while now, Harris’s job-approval numbers have been converging with Biden’s after trailing them initially. These indicate dismal popularity among voters generally, but not in a way that makes her an unacceptable replacement candidate should she be pressed into service in an emergency. As of now, her job-approval ratio in the FiveThirtyEight averages is 37.1 percent approve to 51.2 percent disapprove. Biden’s is 37.4 percent approve to 56.8 percent disapprove. In the favorability ratios tracked by RealClearPolitics, Harris is at 38.3 favorable to 54.6 percent unfavorable, while Biden is at 39.4 percent favorable to 56.9 percent unfavorable. There’s just not a great deal of difference other than slightly lower disapproval/unfavorable numbers for the veep.
On the crucial measurement of viability as a general-election candidate against Trump, there wasn’t much credible polling prior to the post-debate crisis. An Emerson survey in February 2024 showed Harris trailing Trump by 3 percent (43 percent to 46 percent), which was a better showing than Gavin Newsom (down ten points, 36 percent to 46 percent) or Gretchen Whitmer (down 12 points, 33 percent to 45 percent).
After the debate, though, there was a sudden cascade of polling matching Democratic alternatives against Trump, and while Harris’s strength varied, she consistently did as well as or better than the fantasy alternatives. The first cookie on the plate was a one-day June 28 survey from Data for Progress, which showed virtually indistinguishable polling against Trump by Biden, Harris, Cory Booker, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, Gavin Newsom, J.B. Pritzker, Josh Shapiro, and Gretchen Whitmer. All of them trailed Trump by 2 to 3 percent among likely voters.
Then two national polls released on July 2 showed Harris doing better than other feasible Biden alternatives. Reuters/Ipsos (which showed Biden and Trump tied) had Harris within a point of Trump, while Newsom trailed by three points, Andy Beshear by four, Whitmer by five, and Pritzker by six points. Similarly, CNN showed Harris trailing Trump by just two points; Pete Buttigieg trailing by four points; and Gavin Newsom and Gretchen Whitmer trailing him by five points.
Emerson came back with a new poll on July 9 that wasn’t as sunny as some for Democrats generally (every tested name trailed Trump, with Biden down by three points). But again, Harris (down by six points) did better than Newsom (down eight points); Buttigieg and Whitmer (down ten points); and Shapiro (down 12 points).
There’s been some talk that Harris might help Democrats with base constituencies that are sour about Biden. There’s not much publicly available evidence testing that hypothesis, though the crosstabs in the latest CNN poll do show Harris doing modestly better than Biden among people of color, voters under the age of 35, and women.
The bottom line is that one element of the “Kamala Harris conundrum” needs to be reconsidered. There should be no real drop-off in support if Biden (against current expectations) steps aside in favor of his vice-president (the only really feasible “replacement” scenario at this point). She probably has a higher ceiling of support than Biden as well, but in any event, she would have a fresh opportunity to make a strong first or second impression on many Americans who otherwise know little about her.
Really good article discussing the particular class identity of the white working class.
Democrats will have to make overtures on the culture wars, but these don’t necessarily have to be policy overtures.
The most important one is to stop accusing everyone who doesn’t agree with every single liberal tenet a “bigot”, etc.
Too bad this article from Democratic party consultants is again filled with after the fact analysis of Sanders’ and Trump’s campaigns that are simply not true.
1. Sanders never had an opportunity to appeal to Republican voters because they don’t vote in Democratic primaries.
Even progressives who aren’t registered as Democrats can’t vote in Democratic primaries in most states.
2. The amount of unpaid media attention that Sanders received was minimal compared to Trump.
The argument that Trump got coverage only for his racist remarks has one lie and one implicit misinterpretation included.
Many of Trump’s proposed policies have an economic dimension, even if they can be considered racially tainted, the best example being immigration controls.
The truth is media covered Trump remarks in extenso and often live. They didn’t ignore his economic policies either.
How liberals interpret Trump’s words is completely different to what he actually says and what his supporters interpret.
3. Sanders trailed Hillary among minority voters and older voters.
The Democratic establishment almost unanimously supporting Hillary contributed to this. Their power in informing the electorate in minority districts was crucial. These are so called “low information voters”.
Sanders had to rely on unpaid social media.
4. Sanders’ rhetoric during the campaign was so focused on economic issues that it led to accusations of ignoring identity issues.
Sanders made strategic mistakes by failing to campaign early in minority communities and addressing their issues beyond typical pandering. Sanders and Clinton’s proposals regarding minority issues were too similar. It all came down to credibility and both candidates had blind spots.
After the primaries Sanders has started to devote a lot more attention to identity politics issues because those were the ones that sank his candidacy. It was the Southern states and minority communities in cities that defeated him.
Every Democrat should read and heed Levison’s memo. For that matter, so should every Republican, since it explains not only why Trump defeated Mrs. Clinton in the general election but also why Trump defeated so many Republicans.