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.
DemDude: see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34157-2004Dec3.html which indicates that if the GOP attempted to suppress turnout in Demcoratic areas of Ohio they weren’t very successful:
“Second myth: The Bush campaign won by mobilizing GOP strongholds and suppressing turnout in Democratic areas.
“Reality: Turnout in Democratic-leaning counties in Ohio was up 8.7 percent while turnout in Republican-leaning counties was up slightly less, at 6.3 percent. John Kerry bested Bush in Cuyahoga County (home of Cleveland) by 218,000 votes — an increase of 42,497 over Gore’s 2000 effort. In Stark County (Canton) — a bellwether lost by Gore — Kerry won by 4,354.”
As for Diebold, how many times does it have to be pointed out that Ohio did not use Diebold’s e-voting machine? (Most Ohio counties used puncchcards. A few used an older Diebold machine which does leave a paper trail.)
As I’ve said before, I as a Democrat am not at all despondent over this election. It’s hard to beat an incumbent president in time of war, and Kerry was in some respects not the ideal candidate, yet he came close. For 2008, all we have to do is to get 1.4% of the electorate to change its mind. But we’re never going to do thi if we keep trying to persuade ourselves that we don’t have to because we “really” won (at least the electoral vote) anyway…
No doubt an honest vote count would diminish Bush’s margin even further. Yet, I don’t believe Bush stole his popular majority — it’s just too hard to steal 3+ million votes all over the country without getting nailed somewhere. I’m finally persuaded, however, that, yes, the election was probably stolen in Ohio. There is lots of compelling evidence — too much to present here. Jesse Jackson gives a pretty good quickie summation in htttp://www.suntimes.com/output/jesse/cst-edt-jesse30.html. The bummer is that there isn’t much that can be done about it. Given that the Ohio Secretary of State is also Bush’s state campaign manager and Diebold’s shamelessly pro-Bush admission, it is unlikely that any black box shenanigans can be proven. No doubt, many, if not most of the stolen votes were suppressed and never cast in the first place, as frustrated voters in African American precincts were misled to non-existent polling sites, or discouraged by long lines caused by few voting machines. Add to that bogus felon disenfranchisement and other GOP “ballot security” scams, and it’s not hard to imagine 120K votes for Kerry in Ohio being turned into vapor. Yes, we should protest, demand a full recount and raise hell about it. But even if we get conclusive proof, the US Supreme Court would surely screw the Democrats again. The GOP vote theft machine can only be dismantled by Democratic victories in statewide and state legislative races, so that genuine ballot integrity reforms can be implemented.