The common opinion on unified networks is now clear: they keep repeating to you that Kamala Harris he would already have the victory in his pocket and that by now for Donald Trump would be over. The positive comments are all for the vice president, who is regularly presented as a skilled, brilliant and astute candidate, capable – in just three weeks – of overtaking the Republican candidate. On the other hand, this vulgate claims to be based on facts: it is true that various polls give the Harris forward to Trumpas it is equally true that, in the space of a few days, the person directly involved managed to collect over 300 million dollars in electoral funds. Yet these undoubted facts should first be contextualized and, secondly, considered in the medium term: taking a snapshot is in fact of little use. Yes, because, if the race for the White House certainly remains open, perhaps those who consider the Harris already a winner.
Let’s start by remembering that fundraising is not a reliable indicator in itself for predicting the victory of a presidential candidate. In 2016, Trump won the election by raising $600 million: exactly half of the $1.2 billion raised by Hillary Clinton. Secondly, the polls – at this stage – should be taken with a pinch of salt. First: the campaign of the Harris started less than a month ago. We are therefore in a moment of volatility with regard to electoral consensus on both sides. We should wait for “the dust to settle”: in this sense, to make a more calm reasoning, it would perhaps be best to wait (at least) until mid-September. Another aspect to consider is that the so-called “honeymoon” of which the Harris is enjoying is (also) favored by a benevolent attitude of the mainstream American press: that same mainstream press that, at least for now, is not asking her to account for her political about-faces (such as the one on fracking) nor the fact that he continues to avoid journalists (during the first 18 days of the campaign he did not give interviews or hold press conferences).
Another element to underline is that the Democratic candidate is vice president in office of a particularly unpopular tenant of the White House. According to the website FiveThirtyEightthe degree of disapproval that currently characterizes Joe Biden is close to 56%. The same source also revealed that the Harris has a disapproval rating, as vice president, of 49% compared to an approval rating of 41.5%. All this to say that, when the election campaign returns to focus on concrete political issues (starting with inflation), it remains to be seen whether the Harris will find himself with the road downhill. A few days ago, Political reported that the recent stock market crash triggered by the disappointing results of the American labor market could have negative impacts on the campaign of the Democratic candidate, as it is likely that, in the coming weeks, the Bidenomics could increasingly end up under accusation. In that case, the spectre of Hubert Humphrey: this man, in 1968, was vice president in office and obtained the nomination dem in fact in replacement of Lyndon Johnsonwho withdrew from the campaign because of the unpopularity that dogged him for his handling of the war in Vietnam. Eventually, that year Humphrey lost to the Republican, Richard Nixonalso because he was unable to shake off the controversy surrounding his boss.
But there’s more. The current US election campaign has been, so to speak, “drugged” since the end of June. According to the average poll of RealClearPoliticsfrom the end of April Trump was consistently ahead of Biden at the national level by an average of one percentage point. Then, on June 27, there was the televised debate between the two, which finally brought to light the pressure that, for about a year, the Democratic establishment had been exerting on the president to push him to step down. Then followed weeks, in which both the big shots of the Donkey and the mainstream press liberal they literally bombed Biden to convince him to withdraw from the electoral competition. It is during that period that the national advantage of Trump increased, rising to about three points. Then, July 21st arrived: the White House tenant announced his farewell to the race and, shortly after, the Harris has entered the field, benefiting both from the friendly press and from the big financiers who, until shortly before, had closed (or threatened to close) the taps in favour of the Dems, if Biden had not withdrawn. It is therefore clear that we are in a phase of adjustment still in progress for both campaigns. That of Trump is recalibrating, given that the opponent has changed; that of the Harris must understand how to continue to make the most of a honeymoon that will not be eternal (as the Democratic strategist, James Carville). And be careful: polls in swing states have historically underestimated Trump. Let’s take Wisconsin. In 2016, in this state the Clinton a 6.5% advantage: and yet Trump won it by a margin of 0.7%. In 2020, polls said that Biden he would have conquered it with a 6.7% advantage: in the end he won it, yes, but by overtaking Trump by just 0.7%. All this to say that we must be cautious before taking the numbers circulating these days as gospel.
After all, who gives the moment the Harris certain (or almost certain) winner fails to consider the other side of the coin that characterizes her situation. Yes, because the vice president must manage some structural issues of no small importance, starting from the rifts that historically cross the Asinello. The Democratic candidate has chosen as vice Tim Walz so as not to irritate the left wing of his party: a wing that, staunchly pro-Palestinian, did not want to know about a running mate pro-Israel like the governor of Pennsylvania, Josh Shapiro. Yet, the move of the Harris ended up worsening the overall picture. First of all, it dissatisfied the centrist Democratic parliamentarians who supported the same Shapiro. Second, it has failed to calm the radical left. In recent days, the Harris she found herself openly contested by pro-Palestinian protesters in two rallies, which she held in Michigan and Arizona. Let us remember that, especially in Michigan, the pro-Palestinian left holds considerable electoral weight in the Democratic world and that, during the last primaries, it had started a boycott campaign against the re-election of Bidenaccused of being too favorable to Israel. Now, the Harris risks a similar fate. Not exactly good news for her, given that Michigan is one of the states that will most likely decide the next election.
By the way, in Michigan the vice president is also at risk on another front. Despite having obtained the endorsement of their union, it is not certain that the Harris will easily win the sympathies of local metalworkers. Many of them are in fact historically concerned about the socioeconomic impacts of the electric car: the same electric car that, instead, Walzas governor of Minnesota, was a strong proponent. Of course, some say that Walz would be the ideal profile to attract the workers’ vote Rust Belt: however the truly ideal profile would have been Shapiro. As recently noted by Steve Kornacki Of NbcNews, Walzwhen he was re-elected governor in 2022, did not get much of a boost from blue-collar workers. This is an electoral share that the Harris she is historically in difficulty, being an exponent of the left liberal which finds its main base of consensus among the upper-class urban classes of California, New York and New England. Finally, one last consideration. Opting for Walzthe Harris has decided to make the Democratic ticket veer decidedly to the left, whereas – if he had chosen Shapiro – would have made him more appealing to workers and independent voters, perhaps even defusing accusations of extremism leveled by Republicans. Not only that. A ticket so far to the left will have a harder time attracting the Catholic vote: the same Catholics whose support, all too often, allows one to win the White House.
Let’s be clear: nobody here says that the Harris be electorally doomed nor that Trump will certainly win. At the moment, as we have seen, there is too much volatility to make even minimally reliable predictions. The point is another. Those who today continue to repeat that the vice president’s campaign is going swimmingly are leaving out important “details”. Exactly as Trumpeven the Harris has its problems: and there are quite a few of them. Limiting oneself to looking at only one side of the issue (the one that is most convenient), ignoring the rest, is naive and unprofessional. Maybe in the end he will conquer the White House, who can say at the moment? But not for now: KamalHarris he doesn’t have victory in his pocket at all.
