Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign has been a disappointment. When she became the candidate by accident in July, Democratic activists hoped she would defy Donald Trump and inspire the American electorate. Attendees at the party’s convention in Chicago in August assumed voters would see what they saw: an inspiring, vibrant, optimistic leader who would champion the working class and put country before party. Many commentators hailed Ms Harris as Barack Obama’s successor. Swept away by relief that Joe Biden was no longer the candidate, they thought Ms Harris would defeat Trump and lead a new political era.
However, with the election just days away, the polls remain stubbornly tight. While Ms Harris initially gained a few points, she has now lost momentum. Our polling model gives her a 53 per cent chance of victory to Trump’s 47 per cent. Statistical predictions about the result on 5 November remain within the margin of error. Either candidate could win.
This is partly the result of deep polarisation. The US has become entrenched into two camps, each immune to appeals from the other. Between these tribal blocs lie a mass of apathetic voters who no longer trust the political class, or the legacy media, which is why policy announcements from both sides have failed to shift opinion throughout the campaign. War in the Middle East has not motivated swing voters, and nor did the TV debates.
Ms Harris must take much of the blame. She has chosen not to contest the campaign on policy, but on vague appeals to progress and unity. Her strategy is based on the flawed premise that moving to the centre means embracing Republicans who stand for neoliberal economics and foreign intervention. She regularly campaigns with the Republican scion Liz Cheney and has the support of Cheney’s father, Dick. Meanwhile, Ms Harris allows her billionaire backers, such as the businessman Mark Cuban, to give the impression in television interviews that they speak on her behalf. She has diluted Mr Biden’s plans to tax the rich and done nothing to quell reports that she will sack key anti-trust figures in the administration, such as the Federal Trade Commission chair, Lina Khan.
Under Ms Harris, the tech titans who control so much of our daily lives and communications are likely to remain uncowed. Her promises to cut illegal immigration after it surged to record levels under Mr Biden are unconvincing. That Ms Harris has received more than $1bn in donations should not be mistaken for widespread support; it is a sign she has the support of the very rich and powerful. She has abandoned the economic populism that defines the true centre in American politics – a move that deprives her of the best antidote to Trump’s appeal.
Her task was always difficult, however. As Megan Gibson writes for the New Statesman, Mr Biden’s refusal to stand down in good time, aided by liberals’ dishonesty over his evident decline, left Ms Harris with 100 days for a task that any other candidate would have had two years to do. She had to balance Mr Biden’s unpopular record with her loyalty to the ailing president, while transforming her anonymous vice-presidency into a platform for the top job. If Trump does win, Mr Biden’s belated decision to move aside will have to bear some blame.
But given the danger that Trump poses to the world, Ms Harris’s mediocre approach is irresponsible. Over the past few months, Trump has become increasingly erratic and menacing. He responds to dissent with violent fantasy. As Katie Stallard writes, he rails against the enemy within, a phrase whose ambiguity justifies the persecution of whomever the leader dislikes. His infatuation with Elon Musk suggests that, in office, he will indulge corporations that flatter his ego as well as those despotic foreign rulers he admires. According to the journalist Bob Woodward in his new book, War, Mr Trump personally sent Covid-19 tests to the Russian president, Vladimir Putin. Trump’s promise to conclude the war in Ukraine on his first day in office betrays his intention to capitulate to Putin’s ruthless misrule.
These dangers mean that victory for the Democrats is vital. But such a triumph might prove transitory. The party has been unable to develop a politics and strategy to win over voters sympathetic to Trumpism and the Maga movement. This is a dark period for America.
[See also: Kamala Harris’s convictions are still a puzzle]
