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.

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 Certainly none of Lind’s observations are enlightening and likely out of date at this stage.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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.