When the Biden campaign picked Kamala Harris to run with an aging candidate, the idea was gender, skin color, age, prosecutorial past, and energy would raise interest in – and support for – the Democrat ticket. Looks like something may be … going wrong.
Ordinarily, a vice presidential candidate is high visibility, confidence-building, a hard-hitting surrogate for the leading light. Putting aside Biden’s dim beam, something is happening. Harris is nowhere to be seen. Have you noticed?
On the record, Harris is invisible. She showed up for just seven minutes in a “zoom” meeting last week focused on Minnesota, mentioning Trump could do more on COVID. See, e.g., https://www.mprnews.org/story/2020/09/02/vp-nominee-harris-makes-virtual-minnesota-campaign-stop.
She got a story in the Guardian, complimenting her “sneakers,” as “a form of footwear finding their way into many women’s closets as part of a larger challenge to outmoded concepts of femininity.” Said the paper: “Traditionally, there is a standard shoe etiquette for women in political office – either alpha (see: Nancy Pelosi’s stilettos, Theresa May’s leopard print heels) or conservative (Elizabeth Warren’s slide sandals, Hillary Clinton’s pantsuit-matching kitten heels),” but Harris’ sneakers make her “a woman of action.” Hmmm, okay. See, https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2020/sep/03/kamala-harris-what-her-sneakers-mean.
Last, Harris got a puff piece in the New York Times, tying her to the 1952 black activist Charlotta Bass, who was a vice-presidential candidate on the Progressive Party ticket. Hard to see how that helps, but there it is. See, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/04/obituaries/charlotta-bass-vice-president-overlooked.html.
The gaping hole in Harris coverage – causing journalists to rummage, rough it, and scramble – begs a bigger question. Why was she picked? If she is an asset, why not deploy her to win constituencies she is good with? Or was this Harris pick, after all, a misfire?
On the numbers, Harris may have been a complete error. She abruptly left the presidential field in 2019. At the time, analysts saw her as less popular with female, black, Hispanic, and Midwestern voters – than she had imagined herself to be. Those are critical constituencies.
Analysts mused “black voters never flocked to Kamala Harris,” due to “black voters’ relative lack of interest in black candidates.” Buttigieg’s campaign questioned her electability. See, https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/04/kamala-harris-black-voters-2020-075651. Could it be simpler? Trump delivered huge employment numbers, labor participation, income growth, job quality, and elevated living standards to all Americans, including blacks – no pandering.
Other analysts saw Harris as inexperienced, undefined, inconsistent, ideologically squirrely, risky, and malleable. On any given day, she was prosecutor, centrist, socialist, opportunist.
She was divisive within the black community. Her selection produced more confusion than light or unity. Citing Rasmussen, an analyst wrote: “Harris divides blacks: One-third diss pick, now ‘less likely’ to vote for Biden.” See, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/harris-divides-blacks-one-third-diss-pick-now-less-likely-to-vote-for-biden
Looking to 2019, Harris’ weakness should not come as a surprise. Democrats wondered who she was, what she stood for, how she would play. In a New York Magazine article entitled “Why is Kamala Harris Struggling with Black Voters So Much,” a Democrat colloquy offered foresight.
One participant said she fumbled South Carolina – but should have soared. Why? First, “history has already been made with Obama, so there’s less perceived need for African-Americans to unite behind a black candidate.” Second, Obama was ideologically consistent and leftist, while “Harris is … mostly known as a cleverly tactical pol.” Third, Harris causes “Electability Terror” in 2020. See, https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/08/kamala-harris-black-voters.html.
That last bit is important. Perhaps the reason Harris is not visible is that she offends as many traditional Democrats as she attracts. In short, she is a wash, and as such a drag on the ticket.
Like the physics of noise cancellation, in which waves cancel other waves, she may amount to a political interference pattern. If her ambition, age, background, skin and gender help with some voters, they may disaffect, distract, and put off others – critical to Democrat chances of victory.
In a final attempt to understand why Harris is invisible, consider the Midwest. Swing states won by Trump include Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida, North Carolina, and Arizona. Clinton squeakers were New Hampshire, Minnesota, Maine, Nevada, and Colorado. To that add vital Ohio and Iowa. Where – in all those states – does California Harris help?
Look closer. Biden leads in some of these states, but Trump is also closing. Harris did poorly in most, and 15 candidates were standing when she quit. How does her name help? Trump’s 2016 wins in Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Michigan puts pressure on Biden-Harris to flip these states. Harris offers little value in any of them. See, e.g. https://www.newsweek.com/these-six-states-could-determine-2020-presidential-election-1490996#:~:text=According%20to%20Maslin%2C%20if%20their%20nominee%20takes%20the,the%20industrial%20Midwest%20states%3A%20Michigan%2C%20Pennsylvania%20and%20Wisconsin.
Example: Biden-Harris must win Pennsylvania, or else flip Florida, North Carolina, Georgia, and Arizona. Harris does not help. September polls show Trump-Pence erased a 9-point Biden lead in Pennsylvania since July. See, e.g., https://www.usnews.com/news/elections/articles/2020-09-02/trump-erases-bidens-lead-in-pennsylvania-poll?ocid=uxbndlbing; https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/Wisconsin.html#!.
Similarly, in Wisconsin – which Trump won in 2016 and tips Biden – people are paying attention to Trump’s “law and order” message. Riots continue to run roughshod over communities in dozens of states. How does Harris’s “socialism-go” message help? She could revert to “prosecutor,” but who would believe her, and how would her left wing respond?
National polls hardly validate Democrats – or Harris. A national poll, Rasmussen, for the first time puts Trump-Pence ahead 52-48. Again, while Biden bears blame, what did Harris add?
What does all this mean? Just this: A fragile, 77-year-old gaff-master was more ahead before Harris. With her, the team is losing ground. You can bet divisions exist within the campaign. Harris does not want to be tagged with Biden’s loss. Biden has no future after this race.
If Harris was once the perfect pretender for virtually every-identity group, voters are growing sage. Riots and the rot of anti-Trump rhetoric are old. Americans are discerning, intentional, individual, and increasingly concerned. As Biden slips and sleeps, Harris may be backfiring.