TPM Reader KJ sent me this in response to yesterday’s Backchannel. At first I thought these might be made up headlines. But they’re each real. I linked them.
It’s fun to split screen this email with today’s headlines:
The New York Times: Harris Is Set to Lay Out an Economic Message Light on Detail
The Hill: Harris is trying to run a no-substance campaign. Does she believe in anything?
The Washington Post: Opinion | Does Harris need a serious policy agenda? Only if she wants to win.
I’ve come at this debate in my head from a bunch different directions over the last few days. I gave my overarching view in yesterday’s Backchannel. But there are so many different dimensions to it. Kate and I knocked several of them around in today’s podcast. I actually got in a minor spat today with a reporter who I’d dinged for an article description which presented Harris as a sort mystery candidate verging on a Manchurian Candidate, with unknown views and barely detailed ambitions. Are we kidding with all of this?
On the one hand, journalists press for information, details, answers. That’s what they do. It’s their job. It’s part of their job to be annoying. They press for things that people aren’t going to volunteer. But there is something uncanny and vaguely absurd hearing this mix of complaints, demands and warnings of electoral disaster leveled at a campaign which is finishing up what has to be at least among, and quite possibly the, best single month of any presidential campaign in at least half a century. Campaign success isn’t what journalists are or should be concerned about. But it defies belief that Harris and her campaign would shift gears when what they’ve been doing is working this well.
I’ve made my points on this in the earlier piece. I don’t want to rehash them here. But there is one additional point: modern political campaign journalism is almost totally indifferent to public policy. Normally, Democrats cannot get reporters to pay attention to it. So these demands for a “vision” for this and a vision for that and detailed policy papers on all the rest are just a bit weird. Where does this newfound interest come from?
The whole thing will take care of itself. Harris will do some interviews — not because reporters are demanding it but because it will make sense for her campaign. And they’ll flesh out some policies — again, ones that make sense for her campaign.
The deeper story is that most campaign reporters simply don’t know what to make of Harris’ campaign and can’t figure out how it has managed, at least for the moment, to be so successful. That’s not a criticism: I think many of Harris’ supporters are equally mystified. But they’re just happy with the results. They don’t need an explanation. But for reporters the inexplicableness requires a storyline. And this is that storyline: the substanceless campaign, the lack of interviews, yada yada yada. As Kate noted in today’s pod: Biden started doing a bunch of interviews when his campaign started to tank. Trump’s been doing a spree of them because he’s floundering and he’s trying to regain attention. Candidate do these when they need to, not when reporters demand it.
The final part of the story is rooted in official Washington’s view of Harris. To put it baldly, most elite DC journalists treated Harris with a kind of breezy disdain that could scarcely rise to the level of contempt. For the first year of her vice presidency there was an ongoing series of critical reports about issues in the Office of the Vice President, staff drama, mean bossism, general turmoil. I don’t know how much reality there was to those reports. But they set a dismal tone. You’ll remember that when Ezra Klein and others got together the calls for a Thunderdome convention, Klein referred delicately and painedly to “the Kamala Harris problem,” a problem so obvious that it scarcely required explanation: how to usher her out of the way for others from the vaunted Democratic bench.
I’m not trying to pick on Klein here. I’ve done enough of that. I note this simply because it was such a deep conventional wisdom that it hardly required explanation. Everyone in that world knew what he meant. That certainly figures into this, and in both directions. It is not only that there is this great appetite to find out just what it is Harris must be doing wrong. That backstory must have left Harris just utterly uninterested in what these folks have to say. They treated her as something between a punchline and a nonentity and now she’s the odds-on favorite, if only by a small margin, to be the next President. Why should she care?
