She can try to bring the anti-Trump coalition back together, or she can chase the unicorns of 2008. It's still not clear which approach will make the most sense.
It's an amazing turnaround that Republicans are running a pretty detailed policy message attacking Harris over positions she's supported over the years while Democrats are vibing out with Harris is for freedom and the future.
I hope Harris doesn't get too carried away with social media zingers. Seems like she'd be wise to hold an event at one of the carbon capture facilities the Biden-Harris administration has funded to show how not only are Democrats not banning fracking, they invested in making it a clean and secure source of American energy.
I would rather Harris make an appearance at a community solar farm or enhanced geothermal facility. The emphasis being placed on how we are going to get are energy in the (near) future.
There are good strategic reasons for both of those things. The GOP wants to tie her to every possibly unpopular position she's ever taken so that she spends more time on the defensive than attacking Trump or articulating her own positive message; Dems need to put forward a clear and simple message to define her campaign as quickly as possible. I don't see it as a fundamental realignment. I'm interested to see how (and how much) she gets into specifics. Good vibes don't hurt, though!
Both are needed. Policy and passion. That's what I thought came through in the "freedom" video. So the messages need to be deepened. But don't just run against Project 2025 ... use it to show that Republicans 'got nothing to offer' but grievance.
The most value added thing Harris could do is break with Biden on Israel (in a more enlightened direction). This would pull in the youth vote, Michigan, and dampen the energy for protests. This would mean no Josh Shapiro for VP either.
She shouldn’t mess with Biden’s economic philosophy including standing up to the corporate push to dump Lina Khan.
I'm onboard with your first sentence, Bill, but the issue is too incendiary and I suspect Harris will decline to participate in the 3-D chess match that establishes her position on the I / P conflict. However, if Harris ever ends up lucky enough to be in a position to 'can' Lina Khan, it will be at her peril. Everyone knows she's beholding to the corporatists not only in Silicon Valley, but elsewhere, and if these people convince her to back away from advocating for the victims of their greed, well, trick me once, shame on me...trick me the second time and no way does she get my vote.
"She will have a harder time appealing successfully to swing voters with issue positions." Really? I think you're underselling the appeal of reproductive freedom to many swing voters. It's been a huge motivator since Dobbs. I don't see any reason why there would be less energy around it now.
Biden has reminded all of us that "we the people" are the deciding factor in this upcoming election. He said "the inflection point' facing our country and the decision at hand is now. On those rare moments in history, when the decisions we make now determine our fate of our nation and the world for decades to come, America is going to have to choose between moving forward or backward, between hope and hate, between unity and division.”
Yes, the "fate of our nation" rests with you and I. Our choice is between a new leader who's light has shown brightly across America as she touts her legal and prosecutorial experience, her four years as our Vice President, and her clear vision for a righteous tomorrow. She is ushering in a new era in American politics - but one based on the ideals of President Biden and his generation of public service. It was President Obama - who is rated among the top ten Presidents of all time - who exalted Joe Biden to be his Vice President and which laid the groundwork for Harris. This lineage from Obama to Biden to Harris has delivered the high-impact skills and the glowing torch of our collective humanity needed for triumph in the 2024 election.
From Democracy to Democrazy is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Mr. Trump, with his speeches filled with hatred and violence - "there will be bloodbath if I don't win the election" (YouTube, Mar 17, 2024) should start packing his bags and get out of "Dodge." He is no match for Kamala Harris and he knows it. In fact, with her law and order background, Trump may finally end up behind bars; the Georgia election interference case may finally be tried in a court of law; and the Supreme Court may be held accountable for their decisions to protect and defend Donald Trump instead of the laws of our great nation.
Above all, and perhaps most importantly to me, is that Kamala Harris will NOT allow our country to sink into a dictator-form of governance. I spent about twenty years living and working in six dictator-led countries and became bi-cultural in the process. Living without legal or civil rights generates a deep appreciation for the virtues of democracy. Dictator-led countries operate with "fear" as their number one implemental tool. Members of the Russian DUMA - comparable to our House of Representatives with elected officials from all regions of Russia - do not disagree or vote against Vladimir Putin. They know that if they do, themselves or a member of their family could die. During Trump's impeachment trial, members of the U.S. House of Representatives did not vote against Trump. They were afraid of his wrath and possible revenge. Gonzales (R) from Ohio was one the ten Republicans who did vote to impeach Trump. (Politico, 09/16/2021) Due to threats on his family, he refused to run for re-election and hired 24-hour armed protection for his family. It is called a dictatorship - NOT A DEMOCRACY - when the leader rules by instilling fear in elected government officials so they do as he/she wishes. This is the Trump MO - mode of operation. And guess what - Kamala Harris is NOT AFRAID of Donald Trump. To her, he is just another convicted criminal - found guilty of massive fraud, of 34 felony counts, and of sexual abuse.
Alexei Navalny, the former Russian presidential opposition leader, was asked by Time Magazine to author a description of Vladimir Putin for their 100 Edition in June 2022. As most of you know, Alexei Navalny was murdered on February 16, 2024 in a Russian penal colony. He was only 47 years old. Navalny begins his Putin narrative by saying: "Perhaps Vladimir Putin's true mission is to teach lessons. To everyone - from world leaders and pundits to ordinary people. He has been especially good at this in 2022. He reminded us once again that a path that begins with 'just a little election rigging' always ends with a dictatorship." When I read this statement, all I could think of was President Trump's call (which was taped) to Brad Raffensperger (R), the Secretary of State for the State of Georgia pressuring him to "just find about 11,780 votes" in order to overturn the 2020 presidential U.S. election.
When I think of a Kamala Harris's presidency, I think of law and order. We are ushering in a new era across our land, and my sense is that the foundation of the Harris presidency will be her prosecutorial background. I hope so.
For all the talk of coalition building, the reality of the electoral college means figuring out how to capture the states on the bubble. The base is locked in (on both sides), so I find myself subscribing to a) running up and sustaining enthusiasm and b) fighting to win key states via campaigning and driving turnout and c) looking for any addition states that could flip (e g. Purple states with abortion initiatives).
Low info/unengaged/swing voters will rise a bandwagon. For better or worse, people vote for those they like and those they see as winners/winning. Who doesn't want to be on the winning team?
As much as I love policy and would prefer a purely technocratic electorate - I think vibes is going to make the difference this year.
1. Harris may be able to dissappoint parts of the Democratic coalition on particular issues, but I would question the wisdom of trying to actively "antagonize" any significant part of the Democratic base in the hope that will attract some nebulous quasi-mythical "swing voter" categories. It might be preferable for her to actively antagonize the MAGA elements in the GOP who will be prone to overreact and embarrass themselves.
2. Obama carried Indiana in 2008! I wonder if anyone ever analyzed how he did it. That might answer a lot of the questions you raise in today's commentary.
Obama, especially before he became President, presented/had an affect that was “reasonable (kind of boring) Midwestern guy” (including the accent). I think his over performance in Midwest states (in addition to winning Indiana, he won Wisconsin by 10+ points in 2008) was strongly influenced by that vibe.
Whatever choice of paths—and I see no reason for just one—Harris needs to _actively campaign against Trump and MAGA_ instead of hanging back as Biden and his team did.
Every single 18-25 year old I know was planning to write in a candidate for president rather than vote for either of the 2 old men who represent our past not their future. My take? She keeps talking about the future with hope and specificity. She articulates clearly her vision for where we’re going so the rest of us can be optimistic too. And she has fun and keeps it light. The humor has been fresh and welcome. Keep the energy and enthusiasm. In this case, it could be as much if not more about HOW she says what she says as it is WHAT she says.
To quote a not-at-all-admired President: It's morning in America.
And to quote another more-admired President: Yes we can.
This is what I loved about the "Freedom" video (as a 71 year old grumpy white man): it was full of optimism and a message about what ordinary decent people want and hope for and know is possible (despite the burden of the past).
I strongly agree with Beutler's framing of the question, but want to make what seems to be a sideways point.
The term "unprecedented" has been overworked ever since DJT glided down the escalator. And a lot of what we've seen has been "unprecedented". But it's important to recognize that virtually every election since 2000 has been "unprecedented". The success or failure of a campaign will largely depend on whether it responds to an accurate perception of the ways in which the specific conditions under which they are taking place are "precedented" and "unprecedented".
2004 was run against the backdrop of 911 and its lingering afterglow.
2008 was run against the backdrop of the 2007/2008 financial collapse and the audacity of a black man who thought he could be elected President.
2012 was run against the backdrop of that same black man who, as President, had overseen a fairly effective response to that financial crisis and, it turned out, was not some kind of radical leftist.
2016 was run against the backdrop of ... well there wasn't really anything much unprecedented it except for the prophesied return of a Clinton to the ticket, this time a woman. (In a sense, the Clinton campaign was a call for a "return to 'normalcy'".) The truly unprecedented bit, correctly called by Michael Moore and almost no one else, was the rising up of the "WhiteWorkingClass" voters to follow the call of a pseudo-populist DJT who explicitly called for the repudiation of the 'normalcy' that the Clintons (both) and the Bushes (both) represented.
2020 was run against the background of the 'unprecedented' nature of the rhetoric and conduct of the DJT presidency ... not to mention COVID and the economic 'collapse' the response to it created.
The 2024 campaign has to recognize what is unprecedented here and now ... and what is not ... what people want to get back to ... and what they want to get on with. I thought the "Freedom" video released by the Harris campaign struck the right notes for today. And by today I mean July 26, 2024. Over time more and differing notes will need to be struck continuously. Democrats can't let the lies fester.
So it's not merely a matter of running a "unicorn strategy" like 2008 or a "rerun" of 2020. What's needed is something that captures and responds to what Merwyn Peake described in one of his poems as "this desperate edge of now".
One things that frustrates me about your debates with Matt on this is that you both often seem to be talking past one another. IMO i think being coded as moderate or at least not being coded as left/extreme is good electorally. However, I think the question then is what are the mechanisms that produce such codings in the minds of the electorate and in that I think Matt’s singular focus on policy positions seems lacking.
I also think its worth noting that there are different forces at work between negative effects of adopting overly left positions and the positive effects of adopting moderate ones because in the former case the “left positions” are fodder for you opponents and in the later case the candidate/party needs to affirmatively make the messaging case to the electorate.
Why can’t a message that pushes the Overton window (in this case to the left) be a positive one? Maybe people are looking for something different and will respond to someone with the vision and leadership to go there.
Yes so this is fair! I do think the left/right binary is complicating things a bit here. It more accurate to discuss in terms of popular vs unpopular positions which can relate to right/moderate/left but dont need to. The point is ultimately that there are distinct difference between positive self promotion of your own popular positions and the denigration by your opponents of negative issue stances.
It's an amazing turnaround that Republicans are running a pretty detailed policy message attacking Harris over positions she's supported over the years while Democrats are vibing out with Harris is for freedom and the future.
I hope Harris doesn't get too carried away with social media zingers. Seems like she'd be wise to hold an event at one of the carbon capture facilities the Biden-Harris administration has funded to show how not only are Democrats not banning fracking, they invested in making it a clean and secure source of American energy.
I would rather Harris make an appearance at a community solar farm or enhanced geothermal facility. The emphasis being placed on how we are going to get are energy in the (near) future.
There are good strategic reasons for both of those things. The GOP wants to tie her to every possibly unpopular position she's ever taken so that she spends more time on the defensive than attacking Trump or articulating her own positive message; Dems need to put forward a clear and simple message to define her campaign as quickly as possible. I don't see it as a fundamental realignment. I'm interested to see how (and how much) she gets into specifics. Good vibes don't hurt, though!
Both are needed. Policy and passion. That's what I thought came through in the "freedom" video. So the messages need to be deepened. But don't just run against Project 2025 ... use it to show that Republicans 'got nothing to offer' but grievance.
The most value added thing Harris could do is break with Biden on Israel (in a more enlightened direction). This would pull in the youth vote, Michigan, and dampen the energy for protests. This would mean no Josh Shapiro for VP either.
She shouldn’t mess with Biden’s economic philosophy including standing up to the corporate push to dump Lina Khan.
I'm onboard with your first sentence, Bill, but the issue is too incendiary and I suspect Harris will decline to participate in the 3-D chess match that establishes her position on the I / P conflict. However, if Harris ever ends up lucky enough to be in a position to 'can' Lina Khan, it will be at her peril. Everyone knows she's beholding to the corporatists not only in Silicon Valley, but elsewhere, and if these people convince her to back away from advocating for the victims of their greed, well, trick me once, shame on me...trick me the second time and no way does she get my vote.
"She will have a harder time appealing successfully to swing voters with issue positions." Really? I think you're underselling the appeal of reproductive freedom to many swing voters. It's been a huge motivator since Dobbs. I don't see any reason why there would be less energy around it now.
Biden has reminded all of us that "we the people" are the deciding factor in this upcoming election. He said "the inflection point' facing our country and the decision at hand is now. On those rare moments in history, when the decisions we make now determine our fate of our nation and the world for decades to come, America is going to have to choose between moving forward or backward, between hope and hate, between unity and division.”
Yes, the "fate of our nation" rests with you and I. Our choice is between a new leader who's light has shown brightly across America as she touts her legal and prosecutorial experience, her four years as our Vice President, and her clear vision for a righteous tomorrow. She is ushering in a new era in American politics - but one based on the ideals of President Biden and his generation of public service. It was President Obama - who is rated among the top ten Presidents of all time - who exalted Joe Biden to be his Vice President and which laid the groundwork for Harris. This lineage from Obama to Biden to Harris has delivered the high-impact skills and the glowing torch of our collective humanity needed for triumph in the 2024 election.
From Democracy to Democrazy is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Mr. Trump, with his speeches filled with hatred and violence - "there will be bloodbath if I don't win the election" (YouTube, Mar 17, 2024) should start packing his bags and get out of "Dodge." He is no match for Kamala Harris and he knows it. In fact, with her law and order background, Trump may finally end up behind bars; the Georgia election interference case may finally be tried in a court of law; and the Supreme Court may be held accountable for their decisions to protect and defend Donald Trump instead of the laws of our great nation.
Above all, and perhaps most importantly to me, is that Kamala Harris will NOT allow our country to sink into a dictator-form of governance. I spent about twenty years living and working in six dictator-led countries and became bi-cultural in the process. Living without legal or civil rights generates a deep appreciation for the virtues of democracy. Dictator-led countries operate with "fear" as their number one implemental tool. Members of the Russian DUMA - comparable to our House of Representatives with elected officials from all regions of Russia - do not disagree or vote against Vladimir Putin. They know that if they do, themselves or a member of their family could die. During Trump's impeachment trial, members of the U.S. House of Representatives did not vote against Trump. They were afraid of his wrath and possible revenge. Gonzales (R) from Ohio was one the ten Republicans who did vote to impeach Trump. (Politico, 09/16/2021) Due to threats on his family, he refused to run for re-election and hired 24-hour armed protection for his family. It is called a dictatorship - NOT A DEMOCRACY - when the leader rules by instilling fear in elected government officials so they do as he/she wishes. This is the Trump MO - mode of operation. And guess what - Kamala Harris is NOT AFRAID of Donald Trump. To her, he is just another convicted criminal - found guilty of massive fraud, of 34 felony counts, and of sexual abuse.
Alexei Navalny, the former Russian presidential opposition leader, was asked by Time Magazine to author a description of Vladimir Putin for their 100 Edition in June 2022. As most of you know, Alexei Navalny was murdered on February 16, 2024 in a Russian penal colony. He was only 47 years old. Navalny begins his Putin narrative by saying: "Perhaps Vladimir Putin's true mission is to teach lessons. To everyone - from world leaders and pundits to ordinary people. He has been especially good at this in 2022. He reminded us once again that a path that begins with 'just a little election rigging' always ends with a dictatorship." When I read this statement, all I could think of was President Trump's call (which was taped) to Brad Raffensperger (R), the Secretary of State for the State of Georgia pressuring him to "just find about 11,780 votes" in order to overturn the 2020 presidential U.S. election.
When I think of a Kamala Harris's presidency, I think of law and order. We are ushering in a new era across our land, and my sense is that the foundation of the Harris presidency will be her prosecutorial background. I hope so.
Elizabeth
From Democracy to Democrazy
For all the talk of coalition building, the reality of the electoral college means figuring out how to capture the states on the bubble. The base is locked in (on both sides), so I find myself subscribing to a) running up and sustaining enthusiasm and b) fighting to win key states via campaigning and driving turnout and c) looking for any addition states that could flip (e g. Purple states with abortion initiatives).
Low info/unengaged/swing voters will rise a bandwagon. For better or worse, people vote for those they like and those they see as winners/winning. Who doesn't want to be on the winning team?
As much as I love policy and would prefer a purely technocratic electorate - I think vibes is going to make the difference this year.
1. Harris may be able to dissappoint parts of the Democratic coalition on particular issues, but I would question the wisdom of trying to actively "antagonize" any significant part of the Democratic base in the hope that will attract some nebulous quasi-mythical "swing voter" categories. It might be preferable for her to actively antagonize the MAGA elements in the GOP who will be prone to overreact and embarrass themselves.
2. Obama carried Indiana in 2008! I wonder if anyone ever analyzed how he did it. That might answer a lot of the questions you raise in today's commentary.
Obama, especially before he became President, presented/had an affect that was “reasonable (kind of boring) Midwestern guy” (including the accent). I think his over performance in Midwest states (in addition to winning Indiana, he won Wisconsin by 10+ points in 2008) was strongly influenced by that vibe.
Whatever choice of paths—and I see no reason for just one—Harris needs to _actively campaign against Trump and MAGA_ instead of hanging back as Biden and his team did.
Every single 18-25 year old I know was planning to write in a candidate for president rather than vote for either of the 2 old men who represent our past not their future. My take? She keeps talking about the future with hope and specificity. She articulates clearly her vision for where we’re going so the rest of us can be optimistic too. And she has fun and keeps it light. The humor has been fresh and welcome. Keep the energy and enthusiasm. In this case, it could be as much if not more about HOW she says what she says as it is WHAT she says.
To quote a not-at-all-admired President: It's morning in America.
And to quote another more-admired President: Yes we can.
This is what I loved about the "Freedom" video (as a 71 year old grumpy white man): it was full of optimism and a message about what ordinary decent people want and hope for and know is possible (despite the burden of the past).
I strongly agree with Beutler's framing of the question, but want to make what seems to be a sideways point.
The term "unprecedented" has been overworked ever since DJT glided down the escalator. And a lot of what we've seen has been "unprecedented". But it's important to recognize that virtually every election since 2000 has been "unprecedented". The success or failure of a campaign will largely depend on whether it responds to an accurate perception of the ways in which the specific conditions under which they are taking place are "precedented" and "unprecedented".
2004 was run against the backdrop of 911 and its lingering afterglow.
2008 was run against the backdrop of the 2007/2008 financial collapse and the audacity of a black man who thought he could be elected President.
2012 was run against the backdrop of that same black man who, as President, had overseen a fairly effective response to that financial crisis and, it turned out, was not some kind of radical leftist.
2016 was run against the backdrop of ... well there wasn't really anything much unprecedented it except for the prophesied return of a Clinton to the ticket, this time a woman. (In a sense, the Clinton campaign was a call for a "return to 'normalcy'".) The truly unprecedented bit, correctly called by Michael Moore and almost no one else, was the rising up of the "WhiteWorkingClass" voters to follow the call of a pseudo-populist DJT who explicitly called for the repudiation of the 'normalcy' that the Clintons (both) and the Bushes (both) represented.
2020 was run against the background of the 'unprecedented' nature of the rhetoric and conduct of the DJT presidency ... not to mention COVID and the economic 'collapse' the response to it created.
The 2024 campaign has to recognize what is unprecedented here and now ... and what is not ... what people want to get back to ... and what they want to get on with. I thought the "Freedom" video released by the Harris campaign struck the right notes for today. And by today I mean July 26, 2024. Over time more and differing notes will need to be struck continuously. Democrats can't let the lies fester.
So it's not merely a matter of running a "unicorn strategy" like 2008 or a "rerun" of 2020. What's needed is something that captures and responds to what Merwyn Peake described in one of his poems as "this desperate edge of now".
I think the country at large, and particularly young and first-time voters, embrace Kamala.
Joe will forever be one of the greatest presidents in history.
There are only two Presidents in our history that have walked away from the power of the presidency, solely for the good of the country:
Georege Washington
Joe Biden
One things that frustrates me about your debates with Matt on this is that you both often seem to be talking past one another. IMO i think being coded as moderate or at least not being coded as left/extreme is good electorally. However, I think the question then is what are the mechanisms that produce such codings in the minds of the electorate and in that I think Matt’s singular focus on policy positions seems lacking.
I also think its worth noting that there are different forces at work between negative effects of adopting overly left positions and the positive effects of adopting moderate ones because in the former case the “left positions” are fodder for you opponents and in the later case the candidate/party needs to affirmatively make the messaging case to the electorate.
Why can’t a message that pushes the Overton window (in this case to the left) be a positive one? Maybe people are looking for something different and will respond to someone with the vision and leadership to go there.
Yes so this is fair! I do think the left/right binary is complicating things a bit here. It more accurate to discuss in terms of popular vs unpopular positions which can relate to right/moderate/left but dont need to. The point is ultimately that there are distinct difference between positive self promotion of your own popular positions and the denigration by your opponents of negative issue stances.
Thanks for the explanation.
> conspicuous, uncanny issue moderation—the kind that entails antagonizing elements of her base
Sista Soulja? Is that you?