X Close

What Harris learned from Hillary Don't mention the 'deplorables'

'Harris is famously inarticulate, whipping up word salads with the skill of a master chef.' (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

'Harris is famously inarticulate, whipping up word salads with the skill of a master chef.' (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)


October 9, 2024   6 mins

With less than a month to go until Election Day, if the White House were awarded on the basis of professional political competence, then Kamala Harris would be the next president already.

The shrewd strategic moves began early. As soon as the doddery Joe Biden was evicted from his party’s ticket, the Democrats immediately rallied around his successor, with Biden himself endorsing his vice president as he shuffled to the door. Making Harris the candidate by acclamation, instead of having a “mini-primary” served several purposes. It demonstrated the unity of the party behind the new candidate, even as the nomination of a woman who is of black and Asian descent ticked off multiple boxes in identity politics, minimising the risk of defections by the identity-obsessed Left.

Was the last-minute swap of Harris for Biden — after the latter’s disastrous performance in his debate with Donald Trump — a coup by powerful Democratic donors and power brokers such as former president Barack Obama? Perhaps. But as the old saying goes, “politics ain’t beanbag”. The complaint by Republicans that the Democrats should have indulged a chaotic convention was so blatantly self-serving that nobody took it seriously, least of all Republicans themselves.

The switch, at any rate, had an immediate effect, reversing Trump’s erstwhile advantage in the polls and putting Harris comfortably ahead, a lead she’s retained. The presidential race was transformed from one between a vigorous if obnoxious candidate (Trump), and one who is demonstrably incapable (Biden). It’s now a fight in which the 78-year-old Trump is the flailing maniac and Harris the younger and relatively normal politician.

It’s true that Harris is famously inarticulate, whipping up word salads with the skill of a master chef. But even that reinforces her relative normalcy. So far, the Harris campaign has shown that it has learned from the mistakes of Hillary Clinton’s campaign in 2016. The former California senator has not yet dismissed a quarter of voters as “a basket of deplorables”, as Clinton did in her infamous speech eight years ago. And unlike Clinton, Harris hasn’t neglected the Midwest, with its swing votes in the electoral college.

The widely ridiculed phrase “the politics of joy” to describe Harris’s banal and conventional campaign was rapidly abandoned. But the opposite of the politics of joy is the politics of fear, which Biden had made central to his floundering campaign. And unlike Biden, Harris has not made saving democracy a major issue of her campaign. Nor has she gratuitously offended millions of Republican voters by describing them as “quasi-fascist”.

Politics 101, in its American guise anyway, teaches that during general elections nominees should compete to win the political centre. Ever since her installation as the Democratic Party’s substitute presidential candidate, Harris, despite her long record of far-Left positions on social and cultural issues, has been sprinting to the Right as fast as she can. Consider guns. Rebutting accusations that she’s soft on crime and hostile to the Second Amendment, Harris has highlighted her own gun ownership, telling Oprah: “If somebody breaks into my house, they’re getting shot.”

Another lesson of Politics 101 is that parties should try to win over independents and split the opposition. The disciplined, professional Harris campaign has been following the book in both respects.

To appeal to independents, Harris has been emphasising her support for abortion rights. And to win over disgruntled Bush Republican voters, dismayed by the rise of Trump and the populist Right, Harris has gone so far as to praise Dick Cheney. Despite being denounced by many Democrats as a war criminal, Cheney announced he would vote for her instead of Trump. Harris, for her part, was quick to thank the former vice president, praising him for “what he has done to serve our country”.

Not since the Nazi-Soviet Pact have so many Leftist heads exploded. But the cliché about politics and strange bedfellows remains as true as ever.

The competence of the Harris campaign is also evident from what she’s left unsaid. In her earlier political career, and as a product of the Left-wing San Francisco Democratic machine, Harris had been identified with hard-edged racial identity politics. Before dropping out in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary, Harris attacked Biden for his erstwhile opposition to busing, common in the Seventies to achieve quota-based racial balance in public schools. It was a policy so unpopular that even progressive Democrats stopped talking about it years ago.

In her presidential campaign, however, Harris wisely has taken care to distance herself from identity politics. Her campaign has not emphasised her black and Asian ancestry, nor has she made breaking the gender glass ceiling central to her campaign. In this, again she’s repudiated the example of Hillary Clinton.

Have Kamala Harris and her aides run the perfect campaign? Even though she has done an interview with tough questions on 60 Minutes in addition to being interviewed by friendlier hosts like Oprah Winfrey and Alex Cooper on the Call Her Daddy podcast, some in the media fault her for not doing more interviews with major media organisations. But then they would, wouldn’t they? To date, the interviews apparently have not hurt or helped in the polls, and as long as she has a respectable lead over Trump, Harris would be foolish to risk open-ended interviews in which something she said could be used against her. In any event, anyone who still hasn’t decided between Harris and Trump are probably “low-information voters” who pay little attention to politics — and so are unlikely to be swayed by wonkish proposals on tax benefits.

If, moreover, the Harris campaign has been a masterclass in how to run a presidential campaign at short notice, the opposition offers lessons in how to blow a lead. When it became clear that Trump would be the Republican presidential nominee for the third time running, many Republicans hoped that America and the world would see a “new Trump” — more disciplined and less abrasive.

In the event, their hopes were dashed. The wheels came off the Trump campaign bus during his speech at the Republican convention, when he squandered much of the goodwill he had gained after the assassination attempt, characteristically launching into a rambling and self-centred diatribe. Since then, Trump has thrashed about without gaining traction, as it has become clear that his lead over the deposed Biden reflected Biden’s unpopularity, not support for him.

In his televised debate with Harris, for instance, Trump engaged in bizarrely anachronistic red-baiting: “Her father’s a Marxist professor in economics, and he taught her well.” On his Truth Social account, and channelling Joe McCarthy, Trump riffed on the same theme. “Comrade Kamala Harris is terrible for our country,” he said. “She is a communist, has always been a communist, and will always be a communist.” It goes without saying that this kind of stuff may play well with the lunatic fringe. But when Trump should be appealing to undecided moderates, it counts as political malpractice, especially when Harris herself is totally at home on the corporate wing of the Democratic party alongside Hillary Clinton and Wall Street.

Nor did Trump stop there. An even greater example of political ineptitude was his questioning of Harris’s race — “Is she Indian or is she black?” — in front of the National Association of Black Journalists. This rhetorical incontinence is all the more self-defeating, of course, given that growing numbers of black and Hispanic voters have been casting their ballots for Republicans, though majorities of each group still support the Democrats.

With Trump as their standard-bearer, the Republicans cannot take advantage of Harris’s inanity. Trump himself seems unable to make a coherent case for his own candidacy. Quite apart from his own foibles, meanwhile, Trump’s choice of running mate also illustrates his failings as a candidate. J.D. Vance may impress even his opponents with his mastery of detail — but much of that comes by comparing the Ohio senator with Trump himself.

“With Trump as their standard-bearer, the Republicans cannot take advantage of Harris’s inanity.”

Will their different styles of campaigning translate into similar personal styles of governing? Probably not. In the case of Kamala Harris, who has hastily sought to reinvent herself as a bland and uncontroversial centrist during the campaign, pressure from progressive interest groups along with her own instincts would probably cause her to move to the Left on policies like immigration and climate change if elected.  In the case of Trump, his shambolic first term suggests that in a second term he would be as undisciplined as a chief executive as he has been as a candidate.

If presidential campaigning were an Olympic sport, then, the Harris campaign would bring home the gold. But in spite of her competence, she could still lose in November. As always, swing states are key. And though she’ll almost certainly win the popular vote, as the Democrats have done in every election bar one since 1992, a handful of voters in Pennsylvania or Wisconsin could yet deny Harris her prize.

One factor here is the “shy Trump voters” — and who knows how many there are. But a more important factor may be the burden of the last four years. Harris has had to signal that her presidency would be different, without criticising the Biden administration in which she served as vice president. The most effective criticism the Trump campaign has made against Harris is therefore this: if you propose doing this or that now, why didn’t you push for it as vice president over the last four years?

And then there’s the fickleness of voters, which can defeat even the most professional of campaigns. American political operatives are fond of the fable of the dog food company whose executives held an urgent meeting to discuss why an advertising campaign to sell their newest product had failed. After a number of senior executives had proposed various possible explanations, a junior executive speculated: “Maybe the dogs just don’t like the dog food.” In just a few weeks, the Harris campaign will discover whether America’s electoral canines are fans of what they’re offered.


Michael Lind is a columnist at Tablet and a fellow at New America. His latest book is Hell to Pay: How the Suppression of Wages is Destroying America.


Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

54 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bret Larson
Bret Larson
1 month ago

I wouldn’t give her too much credit, sock puppets are quiet by design. Once she has her orders from her overlords then we will see what her presidency would be like.

At a guess the same as Biden, seeing as they haven’t changed.

(Pretty funny just got to I’d mountains so I could post, looked more like hills to me)

Martin M
Martin M
1 month ago
Reply to  Bret Larson

Remind me who these “overlords” are. I always forget.

Brett H
Brett H
1 month ago
Reply to  Martin M

Do you really think Harris came up with this strategy all by herself? In fact do you think she’s come up with anything herself?

Martin M
Martin M
30 days ago
Reply to  Brett H

I’m sure she has advisers. All politicians do.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
30 days ago
Reply to  Martin M

Obama, Soros, for starters.

Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
30 days ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

And the Clintons have a say.

Jerry Carroll
Jerry Carroll
30 days ago
Reply to  Martin M

They are faceless and covert. This is by design. Don’t count on the news media to unmask them. Their incuriosity is part of the design.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 month ago

Yes, the Democrats are the masters of machine politics and slick election campaigns. WooHoo!! Go democracy!!

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
30 days ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

And the Republicans are mastered by a firestarting demagogue.

Jerry Carroll
Jerry Carroll
1 month ago

Whatever happened to Freddie Sayer? Since The Spectator bought UnHerd and put Michael Gove in charge there has been a seep dive in quality. All of these verbose academics wasting the time of your readers! Anyone who knows anything about political polling in America knows these polls are not only wrong but frequently deceptive. They are not worth reporting let alone analyzing. Gove might have some great moves on the dance floor, but I don’t t think he’s the man to oversee your USA reporting.

J Bryant
J Bryant
1 month ago
Reply to  Jerry Carroll

The Spectator didn’t buy Unherd. Sir Paul Marshall, owner of Unherd, bought the Spectator. Gove is now editor of the Spectator but not Unherd. Freddie Sayers is now publisher for both Unherd and the Spectator, which means Gove reports to Freddie.
Legal niceties aside, I agree that in recent months, perhaps as early as the start of the year, there’s been a noticeable change in tone and content on Unherd. In my opinion, Unherd has lost much of the sharp edge of its early days and is becoming much like the Spectator in style–mildly, perhaps even blandly, center right. Whether there’s an argument for maintaining two midly centrist publications under the same owner remains to be seen.

Jerry Carroll
Jerry Carroll
30 days ago
Reply to  J Bryant

Thank you for the clarification. Freddie’s new bureaucratic duties will take him out of what he did so well, fair-handed reporting and analysis of this bewildering world. His time will be eaten up by meetings where more and more seats will be warmed by deputy editors, assistants and deputy assistants. The search will intensify for academics to write turgid essays with the injection of occasional passages of pure hysterical relief at being freed from the jargon of the professoriate. I see it more and more in UnHerd.

Right-Wing Hippie
Right-Wing Hippie
1 month ago

The Perfect Campaign:
Step 1: Become running mate of decrepit old coot
Step 2: Force said old coot out of race after primaries
Step 3: Hide from lapdog media for remaining four months of campaign season
Step 4: Deny everything
Step 5: ????
Step 6: PROFIT!!!

Tony Price
Tony Price
30 days ago

Who’s hiding from the ‘lapdog media’ now? Looks like doddery old Trump to me!

Tony Price
Tony Price
30 days ago

Trump is doing everything he can to avoid interviews and interrogation; it reminds me of Boris Johnson in the run-up to the 2019 election, when he avoided neutral interviews because his lies had just grown too numerous to sustain investigation, except that Trump’s lies are way more numerous and bigger, and he is obviously mentally impaired as well.

Brett H
Brett H
1 month ago

Not the most penetrating of political analysis. Certainly none of Lind’s observations are enlightening and likely out of date at this stage. This looks more like baiting than informing. I expect a flood of pushback in comments. We’ll see how effective this campaign strategy actually is next month.

J Bryant
J Bryant
1 month ago
Reply to  Brett H

Regretfully, I disagree. I think she’s running an effective campaign that minimizes her weaknesses and focuses on Trump’s flaws. She is being very ably abetted by the mainstream media.
As the author notes, this election comes down to a small number of undecided/swing voters. We can only hope they see throught the political bs by Harris’s team and judge the candidates on whether they will likely be an effective leader in an increasingly challenging world.

Brett H
Brett H
1 month ago
Reply to  J Bryant

JB, I wasn’t really suggesting it was a poor campaign, but that what Lind was writing about is not that incisive. The election will make clear whether she took the best course. Not only that but the result will also be a reflection on America.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
30 days ago
Reply to  Brett H

Kamala runs like someone who thinks she knows how the votes will be counted.

AC Harper
AC Harper
30 days ago
Reply to  J Bryant

Maybe so, but I suspect the Trump flaws are already allowed for by his supporters , and after the assassination attempts and endorsement by Robert Kennedy some of the uncommitted are swinging behind Trump too.
Will it be enough to overturn the Democratic political machine though?

Mark Rinkel
Mark Rinkel
1 month ago

It isn’t helping the cause of reigning in the national government to have DJT as the candidate.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
30 days ago
Reply to  Mark Rinkel

I presume you are British. So you think Kamala represents the best for American/British ties, perhaps. Rotf&lmao.

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
30 days ago
Reply to  Mark Rinkel

well, let’s see: Trump has served a term so there is some evidence of what one might expect. Harris is the current VP so again, evidence of what one might expect. Which of those two scenarios served the interests of the ordinary American better?

Jerry Carroll
Jerry Carroll
30 days ago
Reply to  Mark Rinkel

You have misused a word. See if you can figure out which one.

0 01
0 01
1 month ago

We should not fear a strong Harris presidency, we should fear a weak one, when a leader gets weak, They get desperate and when they get desperate they become reckless and dangerous. She gives off strong vibes (no pun intended) of being a week leader.

Katharine Eyre
Katharine Eyre
30 days ago

After reading this, I have become convinced that I have been watching an entirely different election campaign in some parallel dimension because “professional political competence” is definitely not something I would use to describe Harris’ performance.

Catherine Conroy
Catherine Conroy
30 days ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

My feelings exactly.

AC Harper
AC Harper
30 days ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

A demonstration of wishful thinking perhaps? If Harris is the best “younger and relatively normal politician” contending for the Presidency then the USA is well down the path to ruination and the rest of the western world too.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
30 days ago
Reply to  AC Harper

But you saw no warning signs in three consecutive election cycles led by a self-absorbed business schemer and bad reality tv star?

AC Harper
AC Harper
30 days ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

On the other hand Trump has already served one term as President and so is a known quantity – and the USA didn’t crumble.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
30 days ago
Reply to  AC Harper

It was a hot mess the day he left; those who think otherwise seem to suffer from forgetfulness.
And he openly advertises Trump:The Sequel as a much darker performance.
Dictator—but just for a day of course. Unless the ratings are really good from what he hears.

Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
30 days ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

Yes. Could not believe the bilge I was reading.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
30 days ago

Hillary taught Kamala how to creep out America

Brett H
Brett H
30 days ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

“Creepy”, so true.

Martin M
Martin M
30 days ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

Who taught JD Vance? Presumably he didn’t learn from Hillary.

David McKee
David McKee
30 days ago

I’m a Brit who happened to be in America at the time of the Harris-Trump debate. I don’t have strong opinions about American politics (I have enough problems with British politics, thank you very much), so I approached the debate with an open mind.
Wow. Just, wow. Harris, I thought, was a weak candidate who avoided tough questions and struggled to articulate how her presidency would benefit Americans. Trump resembled a pensioner with Alzheimer’s who had forgotten to take his medication. He came across as having no credibility at all. I would not trust him to walk my dog, let alone lead my country.
And yet millions of sane, patriotic Americans are ready to vote for him. It suggests to me that there is something very seriously wrong with American politics.

Brett H
Brett H
30 days ago
Reply to  David McKee

Trump resembled a pensioner with Alzheimer’s who had forgotten to take his medication.
There are many ways that sum up Trump but this is not one.

Martin M
Martin M
30 days ago
Reply to  Brett H

Yes, indeed. He missed “sociopathic felon”.

Brett H
Brett H
30 days ago
Reply to  Martin M

Quite frankly all politicians appear to be sociopaths. Being a felon these days is meaningless.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
30 days ago
Reply to  David McKee

Sorry, but it sounds like you actually watched a Biden Harris press conference. America has watched a demented pensioner for the last four years and his name is Biden. Your comment sounds….fabricated, to be polite.

Dave Canuck
Dave Canuck
30 days ago
Reply to  David McKee

You mean he got spanked by Kamala in the debate, obvious to anyone with an objective view of things. The embarrassment of Trump was complete, the reason he will avoid debates from now on.

Paddy Taylor
Paddy Taylor
30 days ago

What an extraordinary piece!
Whilst I understand anyone who fears Trump to the extent that they can convince themselves that anyone else would be better, I find it impossible to believe that any intelligent person could ever honestly look at Kamala Harris and imagine that she is competent.
If you honestly believe that Trump represents such an existential threat to the US that you’re prepared to hold your nose and vote for someone you admit has long been “identified with hard-edged racial identity politics”, then fair enough, that’s your choice. But if you’re trying to pretend that there is anything normal or trustworthy about a politician who has changed every one of her policy positions (with almost no scrutiny from the media) then, frankly, I struggle to believe you.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
30 days ago

Your perception of the campaign is entirely dependent on the mainstream media you watch and the algorithm that feeds you more content on social media.
Anyone who can’t rationally discuss the strengths and weaknesses of both campaigns with grounding on core tenets of constitutionality is a partisan and probably trying to put their finger on the scale.

William Simonds
William Simonds
30 days ago

If this article is true, and Harris has run the perfect campaign and Trump the worst, then why are the polls showing results that are within the margin of error? Only one reason I can think of: a terrible candidate has run a good campaign. Does this also suggest a good candidate has run a terrible campaign? Lincoln was right: Kamala cannot fool all the people all the time.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
30 days ago

The opening paragraph made me think this was a satirical humor piece.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
30 days ago

“What Harris Learned from Hillary.” Worst clickbait ever. (And no, I didn’t read the article, just posted this snarky comment.)

Daniel Lee
Daniel Lee
30 days ago

“With less than a month to go until Election Day, if the White House were awarded on the basis of professional political competence, then Kamala Harris would be the next president already.”
*Spit take.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
30 days ago

The OP is, I think, perfectly right in the main idea behind this article – Harris has learned from the mistakes of Hillary (and the near-mistake of running Biden a 2nd time) and is putting on a much more competent campaign and showing more respect for the voters.

It is of course a facade. For instance, Democrats are trying to paint themselves as a patriotic, law-and-order party today, but in 2020, at the height of the Floyd Riots (and before 6 January) they were a race-obsessed, pro-anarchy, pro-1619-project party. They talk about how Trump needs to be defeated to save “democracy,” but it was their party that hid Biden’s mental deterioration from the voters for as long as possible so thar his successor could be picked without any voting, and so forth.

I’ve written about this in detail at my own substack, in a post entitled “For Democrats, Embracing ‘Democray’ is a Last Resort.”

https://twilightpatriot.substack.com/p/for-democrats-embracing-democracy

The gist is that the Harris campaign’s run to the center (and to actually respecting voters) is a desperation move, something to be done when every other option is exhausted, and will be abandoned when the election is over and the fear of Donsld Trump has dissipated.

Peter Mott
Peter Mott
30 days ago

Presently Harris leads Trump by 2.6% in national polls. In 2020 on Nov 2 Biden led by 8.6%. In 2016 on Nov 8 (election day) Clinton led by 3.9%. All this from fivethirtyeight.com. Harris campaign does not presently look like its enough to win, though I agree with Lind that the campaign is competent.

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
30 days ago

if the White House were awarded on the basis of professional political competence, then Kamala Harris would be the next president already.
When this is the opening stanza, please explain how anything else in the piece will be even remotely credible. If memory serves, and one does not even have to remember very far back, Harris was seen as a liability to a Biden campaign. Now, she’s George Washington, Cicero, and probably some others in a single package.
I understand the need and desire to court diverse perspectives. But can those please be tethered to a semblance of reality. Harris is the #2 in an administration that by most metrics is failing. The only debatable point is whether the failure is due to wholesale incompetence or careful malevolence. I’ve always leaned toward the latter. These are not stupid people; they are people who have never liked the American ideal and their every move is designed to undermine some component of society and national cohesion.

Mark Phillips
Mark Phillips
30 days ago

Excellent piece of sphincter osculation.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
30 days ago

It is far better to be deplorable, as apparently Kamala and Hillary see Americans, than it is to be despicable, as Hiallary and Kamala are.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
30 days ago

What a cynical take, or series of flailing blows by Mr. Lind. The Harris campaign is comparatively competent overall, but they don’t have a darkly charismatic P.T. Barnum / Don Rickles / Father Coughlin at the top of the ticket. Trump brings that combover-threatening whirlwind of a combo; it keeps things close and undecided.
Lind seems to like broadbrush insults and cheap shots, like referring to the electorate—those who vote a certain way at least—as actual dogs. Deplorable journalism here.

Essais Online
Essais Online
30 days ago

Ms. Harris is given too much consideration here, as elsewhere. Substitute “Harris Campaign” for all reference to her person, and the article quickly becomes sensible.
Ms. Harris’ quick rise from a simple West Coast law student to presidential candidate clearly represents a free ride on the gravy train of leftist politics. At best, she can make peace with herself for being the compliant tool, the marionette, of the professional campaign machine at her back. Her strings are pulled carefully, as the article describes, but despite all the professional motions and backdrop, she still speaks with a simple, mechanical mouth. The wooden clak, clak, clak of her jaw still echoes behind her words, hopefully for all to eventually hear.