The Trouble with Harris
As Polls Tighten, Harris’s Candidacy Feels the Strain of Lost Momentum
It looks like the election is Donald Trump’s to lose again. The last time many felt this way was in the aftermath of the presidential debate between Mr. Trump and Joe Biden, which led to the collapse of the former’s candidacy and marked the end of his political legacy. In hindsight, that debate resembled a climactic battle—perhaps even the Battle of Waterloo, with Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden standing in for Wellesley and Bonaparte. Following Mr. Biden’s decisive defeat, Mr. Trump surged in the polls, appearing as the favored contender to retake the presidency. Post-debate polling indicated a comfortable victory, foreshadowing Mr. Biden’s eventual “abdication” and Ms. Harris’s rise to the nomination.
Ms. Harris immediately experienced a surge in the polls, adoration, and excitement from the media; the novelty of the candidacy and the historical significance of the race (being incredibly atypical) helped animate some interest in what was a rather dull affair between two well-known candidates, and she entered August with “the big mo.” A well-delivered speech at the Democratic National Convention, a boost in favorability against an unpopular opponent—one could be forgiven for thinking that she would run away with it. Of course, Ms. Harris hid from the media during that summer, but did it matter? She was winning, or so we were led to believe.
Much like how the warmth of summer encapsulated these feelings, the coolness of autumn seems to reflect the present-day shift in her campaign. Gone are the energetic rallies delivered to jubilant crowds, substituted for lukewarm rehearsed speeches. Both Ms. Harris and her loyal deputy, Tim Walz, seem to be on the defensive rather than continuing an ascent. Momentum appears to have halted, and the campaign's appearances have become cautious. The more Ms. Harris appears, the more we learn why such appearances are rare.
Even with a friendly questioner like Bill Whitaker, Ms. Harris's performance was as uninspiring as it was revealing. She dodged critical questions with canned and repeated responses, leaving us to wonder what—if anything—she truly stands for. Ms. Harris has repeatedly refrained from delving into policy specifics, and Mr. Whitaker's questions were hardly challenging. Yet, Ms. Harris fumbled with empty answers, particularly on the issue of bringing down prices. Her response? More government spending and finger-pointing at the Trump tax cuts, which she implies are to blame for everything. There's not much for the American voter to latch onto there.
When pressed on the border crisis, Ms. Harris blamed Congress, overlooking her administration’s role in dismantling previous border policies, the administration that she is conveniently a part of when selling her qualifications and conveniently detached from when it comes to contrasting herself against an unpopular incumbent. On foreign policy, her responses to the war in the Middle East were similarly shallow; she made the usual platitudes about Israel's right to defend itself but declined to endorse any meaningful action against Iran or Hamas.
It's no secret why the campaign has been forced to appear on more shows and podcasts; internal polling data is raising alarm bells. But each time she steps in front of the camera, one is reminded why the campaign has sought to limit such exposure. It was easy for Americans to embrace her candidacy amid the campaign's early media fanfare and fresh tone. Though it may seem harsh to say, her current media blitz reminds us why she received 1 percent of the vote during the primaries. Ms. Harris's dilemma is that the more she reveals herself to the electorate, the worse her numbers get, yet if she hides—she is attacked for ducking the questions. Rather than galvanizing the electorate, her recent media rounds seem to yield little positive impact—if anything, they’re proving counterproductive.
Before this blitz, Ms. Harris led the RealClearPolitics average in almost all of the battleground states; she now trails Mr. Trump by 0.2 in Pennsylvania, 0.5 in Michigan, 1.4 in Arizona, and 1.0 in Georgia—a minor polling error in favor of Mr. Trump would result in him clinching the electoral college with him receiving 296 and Ms. Harris receiving 242; Mr. Trump would be 26 votes clear. Polymarkets' odds (of predicting the election's winner) have shifted to Mr. Trump; he can boast of having 53 percent odds of winning the election, up from his 49 percent at the beginning of the month.
There’s still a considerable stretch before Election Day, and the outcome remains uncertain. Whether Mr. Trump wins by a narrow or comfortable margin—or Ms. Harris does the same, neither result should be a surprise. This election brings to mind the race in 2004, the most similar comparison, when the polling margins in swing states hovered just under two percent, with some expecting John Kerry to prevail over George W. Bush and many others predicting a win for the president. Unsurprisingly, the polls missed, resulting in a fairly comfortable victory for Bush.
With some cynicism, one can’t help but wonder whether these polls are crafted to heighten the excitement and media spectacle of a ‘close race,’ or if they simply reflect it. In politics, a week is an eternity, and we still have three left; much can change before the final ballots are cast. Ms. Harris may yet regain her footing, or Mr. Trump could ultimately capitalize on the drift. But one thing is certain in this election full of unknowns: the unpredictability has never felt more acute.