Member Newsletter
Over the weekend a number of people, independently, asked me if there was some shift in the presidential campaign, some shift in the vibes, some shift in the polls, etc. When I asked what prompted the question, it was usually chalked up to a number of articles over the weekend suggesting that Harris’ campaign is faltering or stalled or somehow blowing the election. The through-line through most of this commentary is that Harris’ campaign is too risk-averse or not running an aggressive enough campaign, which she needs to be doing. There are actually some so-so polls out this morning. But we’ve been in a period of small ups and downs for about a month. So I wanted to tell you what I told these people.
I’m agnostic or agnostic-ish on what kind of campaign Harris is running. There are various things I’d suggest she do if the campaign were asking me. I’d be trying to push new news conversations on the abortion issue, for instance. I might be trying to generate favorable news cycles on a few other issues. I’m always about remaining on offense, generating news cycles in which your opponents are responding to you, hopefully on adverse terrain, rather than vice versa. But I can’t ignore the fact that Harris and her campaign managed a five- to seven-point top-line shift in the national poll numbers within a week or two (depending on when you count the dates) of entering the campaign and have managed to hold that margin there for about two months.
This relative stability of the race is actually one of the under-noted aspects of the campaign. For all the discussions of polling rollercoasters, what’s remarkable is that the averages have been almost uncannily stable going back two months. I note this because that is a pretty strong record to date. This is on top of a long list of high-stakes events — a convention, a VP pick, a debate, major network TV interviews, each of which has come off pretty flawlessly. Then there is just the litany of mundane things a campaign has to do every day, a big bag of opportunities to goof and mess up and which you normally don’t think about because they come off without a hitch. So I don’t have a lot of confidence saying they don’t know what they’re doing and I know better.
The additional factor is that my mental world is the national political news conversation. The campaigns are fighting to make an impression on people who are connected to politics only loosely, if at all. Both campaigns are fighting it out over maybe three to four percentage points of the electorate in six or seven states. The campaign likely has a better idea of what’s driving those people than I do. Those fights may be happening in places I’m not even seeing.
Of course, this can but shouldn’t come down to, “Well, they must know what they’re doing.” An active and vital political coalition cannot and should not just think from the top down. And to the extent I’m a professional political news commentator, if I just say, “Well, who knows?” then I’m not really earning my daily keep. The point I’m angling toward here is a bit different. There’s a great deal of pent-up angst among Harris supporters first and mostly about the race itself and beyond that why Harris hasn’t put the race away. Why hasn’t she opened up a solid five or six point lead (judged by the averages)? Enough of a lead that you could start to think that even with a significant polling error Harris is still going to win?
There’s an analog to this among a lot of campaign reporters. Even though they generate coverage filled with bothsidesism and are generally wired for the GOP, the subtext of much of the coverage is “Why isn’t she walking away with this?” And … well, that’s a good question. Why isn’t she? But that’s probably a verdict or a question for the country at large as much as the Harris campaign.
What this all comes down to in my mind is that, sure, Harris’ campaign probably could be doing some things better. It would be sort of odd if she and her campaign were managing to hit every mark every time. And maybe they are making some important and big strategic errors — not leaning forward into news cycles, not picking enough fights on friendly ground, etc., etc. I genuinely don’t know. But to the extent we’re picking up iffy or downcast vibes, I don’t think this is coming from analyses of the campaign so much as pent up angst — angst driven by the nail-biting nature of the stakes involved and a lack of new shiny objects, the absence of a new tentpole event to hold everyone’s attention or provide another opening where maybe she will finally break the race open. My point isn’t “Kamala’s got this.” My point is that you thinking she’s screwing up or stalling or whatever, if you are, is probably your angst talking more than some real analysis of what’s happening in the campaign.