Since Joe Biden’s withdrawal from the presidential race, the revival of the Democratic Party has defied virtually all expectations. Vice-President Kamala Harris quickly and skillfully united the Democrats behind her, avoiding a divisive convention fight and making talk of a “coup” against the sitting President sound ridiculous. Her choice of Tim Walz as the vice-presidential candidate has been popular, especially in comparison with Donald Trump’s decision to run with the dour culture warrior and notorious hypocrite JD Vance (who not so long ago called his new boss America’s Hitler). Fears that anti-war protests might mar the Chicago Democratic convention, as happened when the party met there in 1968, proved unfounded. The planned demonstrations fizzled.
The convention itself was a remarkable success, with the speakers pushing hard the themes of “joy” and “freedom,” emphasizing the need to improve the lot of ordinary Americans and keep the government away from women’s bodies following the conservative Supreme Court’s abrogation of abortion rights. Biden had centered his re-election campaign entirely on the theme of “saving democracy,” which had little appeal to anyone not already in his camp. Harris, in her acceptance speech, did clearly and forcefully underline the threat Trump poses to American democracy. Even if “Donald Trump is not a serious man,” she stressed, the peril he incarnates needs to be taken seriously. But this sharp warning came tucked between a moving description of her own upbringing, and fervent expressions of American patriotism. Yes, the speech was rambling, and short on specifics, in the manner of most contemporary American oratory. It did not have the power, either in its content or delivery, of the incandescent performances delivered two nights earlier by Michelle and Barack Obama (Barack, incidentally, must now be considered only the second-best American orator named Obama). But, from a purely political perspective, this hardly matters. Harris knows very well that most voters do not see political speeches live, at their full length, but instead in short clips on television or through social media. The speech was written accordingly, with sound bites that effectively highlighted Harris’s connections with ordinary people, her personal strength, and her love of country. All in all, the convention is likely to produce another boost for Harris in the polls.
Harris is still scrambling to put together a campaign team and program (and has not yet given any interviews or press conferences), but her very late entrance into the race also brings an odd advantage. Because she did not have to run a primary campaign, she did not have to spend long months trying to please the Democratic Party’s progressive base, something which generally exposes Democratic nominees to the charge of being excessively liberal. Even so, Harris knows well that as a woman of color from California, many Americans will see her in this light nonetheless (and her choice of Walz, a left-wing favorite, did not help in this regard). So her convention speech also represented a determined and strategically sound pivot towards the center, not only in its repeated expressions of patriotism, but in hawkish promises to secure the southern border and to pursue a forceful foreign policy.
Meanwhile, the Trump campaign seems to be floundering. In the candidate’s rallies and news conferences he sounds oddly sedated. His rambling, repetitive, and often incoherent monologues, composed mostly of crude insults (calling Harris a “cheater,” a “communist,” a “lunatic,” a “moron,” and “pro-crime”), leave his audience visibly bored and restless. He continues to complain idiotically about Harris’s “coup,” as if delegates to a party’s national convention cannot choose the candidate they want. His attempt to live-tweet comments on Harris’s acceptance speech was mostly embarrassing (“WHERE’S HUNTER?” he posted at one point). Trump cannot bear the thought that Harris might be leading in the polls, or drawing larger crowds, so he incessantly cites unreliable poll numbers showing him ahead and boasts of how many people have come to hear him (Barack Obama mercilessly mocked Trump’s “weird obsession” with crowd size, hinting with his hands that Trump was really worried about the size of something else). It’s a poor strategy. Trump would do better to admit that he is in a tough fight, so as to push his supporters to come out for him. Trump is also continuing, as in the past, to run a campaign based almost entirely on fear and hatred. The Democrats in Chicago attacked him, but also spoke movingly about the need for national unity. This is not a language Trump knows how to speak. He aims his message at the people he considers “real Americans,” and promises nothing but retribution and pain for everyone else.
So can the good times continue to roll on for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz, down to election day? It depends on three things.
First, the economy, which is sending out some warning signs. Unemployment numbers are up, and the job gains in the first part of the year were much lower than originally reported. The stock market fell precipitously earlier this month (leading Trump to crow about a “Kamala crash”), and while it recovered, it remains fragile. Post-pandemic inflation continues to bite, especially the massive rise in housing costs (Harris is wisely making the construction of affordable housing a centerpiece of her campaign). The more that middle- and working-class voters in swing states like Pennsylvania fear bad times, the more susceptible they will be to Trump’s angry message.
Second, the September 10 debate. It will almost certainly not be as decisive as the one between Trump and Biden in July—the most consequential in US history, which led to Biden’s withdrawal. But it could still move the race in new directions. Harris is a former prosecutor with sharply honed debate skills. Many of my colleagues and friends assume she will demolish Trump. But Trump, like any bully who refuses to follow the rules and makes up facts on the fly, is a dangerous opponent. He will storm, rage, throw out insults, and do whatever he can to knock Harris off her stride. The strategy could backfire badly, or he might succeed in making her look weak and uncertain. For a black woman candidate who must already overcome prejudice to win the election, this outcome could conceivably damage her considerably.
Finally, can the GOP find a damaging line of attack to use against Harris? It’s worth noting that Ronald Reagan was the last Republican candidate to win a presidential election primarily on the issues: he beat Jimmy Carter in 1980 above all by repeating the simple question: “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” Since then, Republicans have principally won by finding ways to damage their Democratic opponents personally, In 1988, George H.W. Bush ran the infamous “Willy Horton” ad, blaming Michael Dukakis, the Governor of Massachusetts, for a prison furlough program that released a black felon who went on to murder a white woman. In 2000, somewhat less effectively, George W. Bush pilloried Vice-President Al Gore as a liar and a phony who had supposedly claimed to have “invented the internet.” Gore still won the popular vote, and only lost the Electoral College because of a highly dubious Supreme Court decision. In 2004, Bush managed to damage John Kerry more seriously for having supposedly exaggerated his Vietnam military record commanding a “swift boat.” Against the background of the 9/11 attacks and the early days of the Iraq War, the attack proved fatal. And in 2016, Trump ruthlessly exploited the faux scandal around Hillary Clinton’s emails to reinforce a popular image of her as untrustworthy and unpatriotic. In each case, the effectiveness of the line has also depended on the mainstream media taking the issue seriously, leeching away the Democrat’s momentum and pushing him or her onto the defensive.
So far, the GOP has not found a comparably effective line of attack to use against Harris. They have tried to “swift boat” her running mate Tim Walz, who supposedly dropped out of the National Guard to avoid service in Iraq, but given his previous 24 years of Guard service, this criticism is unlikely to stick (and, in any case, he is not the presidential candidate). This week, Trump tried a version of Willy Horton, claiming that an illegal immigrant who avoided prison on first-time drug charges thanks to a program Harris had championed while District Attorney in San Francisco later badly injured a young white woman in a robbery attempt. But at the time, Harris quickly announced that the program had not been intended for illegal immigrants. And her well-earned reputation as a tough prosecutor may shield her from other such attacks.
But the Republicans will keep trying. As the familiar metaphor has it, they will continue to throw spaghetti against the refrigerator, in the hope of finding something that sticks. If they do—and if the mainstream media cooperates in highlighting the resultant Harris “scandal” more than the familiar Trump ones—then the dynamics of the race could flip. Still, for the moment, amazingly from the perspective of just five weeks ago, Kamala Harris looks like the most likely next President of the United States.