It has been more than two months since Vice President Kamala Harris was officially certified as the Democratic Presidential nominee. Following months of poor polling and a disastrous debate performance by President Joe Biden, many Democrats were deeply pessimistic about their odds in the upcoming election. The arrival of Harris as a viable nominee seemed to ease a lot of Democrat’s worries – the simple fact that she was not Biden was enough to get a lot of unenthusiastic voters interested again, but, being the VP, she had enough name recognition that it did not feel surprising to those who might have been worried about replacing the nominee so late.
And to Kamala’s credit, she made a lot of good choices in the earlier parts of her campaign. She chose a great VP pick — Tim Walz, the popular and charismatic Governor of Minnesota, who appeals to working class and swing-state voters and is difficult for Republicans to attack given his relatively clean record. Her focus on protecting abortion rights was also a wise choice, as she seems genuinely committed to protecting them, as opposed to Biden, who seemed to talk about this issue as infrequently and dispassionately as he could. Plus, her debate performance was excellent, giving many Democrats their first opportunity in a long time to see Trump struggling, which will surely increase confidence and enthusiasm for Harris among voters.
Still, some issues remain unresolved in Harris’ campaign. She has not adequately explained how she intends to be different from Biden, which is essential to earning the vote from younger and more left-wing voters who remain disturbed by Biden’s complicity in the Israeli genocide of Palestinians in Gaza. Obviously, as his current Vice President, Harris cannot completely sever herself from her connection with Biden, but it would do her good to directly state how she intends to do better than him on this issue. She, like Biden, has continued to issue weak overtures for peace and ceasefire, but has avoided the appearance of blaming Israel for anything, even as Netanyahu’s actions have drawn increased negative attention from all around the world. It is possible that her campaign genuinely thinks these flaccid statements are enough to earn the votes of young, left-wing voters, but, if that’s the case, she is in for a surprise on election day.
Another significant issue with Kamala’s campaign is her “big tent” strategy. She is continuing a long-standing Democratic strategy of trying to appeal to Republicans and Conservatives who are anti-Trump. Whether or not any significant body of voters that meet this description even exists, Democrats have used them as an excuse to make their messaging more right-wing and less radical since 2016. The assumption that former Republicans jumping ship to the Democrats will have a significant influence on the outcome of the election, has, to my knowledge, always been taken for granted by the Democrats. Meanwhile, any suggestion that the Democrats should appeal to left-wing voters is usually dismissed outright with the expectation that “they don’t vote anyway” and “their demands are unrealistic.” The popularity of Bernie Sanders during the 2016 election demonstrated the viability of consistent left-wing messaging by a Democratic candidate, but it seems that mainstream Democrats would rather appeal to the Conservative “never Trumpers” who they suppose must exist than to the left wing of the party that they know exists.
Harris’ big-tent messaging reached its peak when she accepted the endorsement of former Republican Vice President Dick Cheney. His daughter Liz Cheney, former Republican Representative of Wyoming has been a consistent opponent to Trump, and she got a lot of positive attention from the media for it — even when she lost her primary to a pro-Trump candidate by a margin of more than 37 points. Again, Liz Cheney’s defeat should be conclusive in suggesting that anti-Trump conservatives are a completely insignificant voting body that the party does not need to change its messaging to appeal to, but Democrats have gone forward with this strategy anyway. When Harris accepted the endorsement of the incredibly unpopular architect of the Iraq War, the idea might have been, “see, even Dick Cheney thinks Trump is a problem, that’s how serious this election is!” However, most critical Democratic voters instead wondered what it was about Harris’ campaign that could possibly make her appealing to someone like Cheney. This endorsement, and the enthusiastic acceptance of it by the campaign, has solidified the probability of a rightward shift of the Democratic party in the minds of many voters. For those of us who’s opposition to conservatives goes beyond a simple disdain for Trump, any amount of right-wing influence on the democratic candidate is deeply troubling. Harris’ surprising statement in a CNN interview that she would “have a member of [her] Cabinet who was a Republican” also contributed to this impression, and left many of us left-wing voters eager to participate in the democratic process scratching our heads and wondering how exactly we can vote to ensure Republicans do not have any position within the executive branch of government.
Ultimately, a victory for Harris would surely be better for the country than the alternative. But given these problems, it is unlikely she earns a significant portion of the left-wing vote. A Harris victory might have negative consequences on Democratic strategy, by convincing Democrats that appealing to the right and center of the party is more important than appealing to the left. The lessons learned in the event of a Harris loss would be equally bad — Democrats would likely blame younger, left-wing Americans for not being enthusiastic enough, or for being unwilling to vote for someone who they disagree with so strongly. Regardless of the outcome, a rightward shift of the Democratic party seems likely.