The campaign of Kamala Harris continues to make missteps. Last week, the vice president canceled the gala dinner of the archdiocese of New York, sending on her behalf a video of dubious taste and bordering on the offensive. A problematic choice to say the least, given that, a few days earlier, the Democratic governor of Michigan, Gretchen Whitmerhad published another video in which he mimicked the Eucharist while wearing a hat with “Harris-Walz” written on it. Also last week, the vice president seemed to agree with a pro-Palestinian protester who had interrupted her, accusing Israel of genocide: the campaign therefore had to intervene, specifying that the Dem candidate had not given her consent to that accusation.
To make the situation worse, a new electoral advert has been released Harriswhich implies that African American males will be rejected by women if they don’t vote. We remember that, a few days ago, an uproar broke out after that Barack Obama he had accused the African-American male electorate of sexism, “guilty” of not showing too much enthusiasm towards the vice president’s candidacy. But that’s not all. The Hill reported that, especially in recent days, the Harris he’s trying to distance himself as much as possible from Joe Bidenwho remains a remarkably unpopular White House occupant. Small detail: perhaps such a strategy should have been adopted already in August, without waiting for the last two weeks before the vote.
Last but not least, beyond the more or less extemporaneous oversights, the vice president is also paying for some fundamental errors, committed in August. And we are referring above all to the choice of Tim Walz as deputy and to having waited a month before starting to give interviews. Waltzat least for now, rather than helping her, is weighing her down. Avoiding interviews throughout August instead put her at odds with the same press that had no dislike for her and, above all, made many undecided voters rather suspicious of her.
And be careful: these missteps are making the situation increasingly problematic for the Harris. The predictive statistical models of The Hill, Nate Silver and of theEconomist currently attribute to Donald Trumpalbeit slightly, greater chances of victory in November. Furthermore, according to the polling average of Real Clear Politicsthe national advantage of the Dem candidate has fallen from +2.2% at the beginning of October to +1% today (as of 21 October 2020, Biden was ahead by more than seven points). The same average then gives the tycoon a slight lead in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Let’s be clear: the overall picture continues to reveal itself as that of a fundamentally precarious situation, which is why the race remains open. However, it is a fact that since mid-October it has been Trump the candidate to enjoy greater momentum.
Given that anyone would have found it difficult to be catapulted into a presidential race three months before the vote, it is nevertheless clear that, if all these missteps had been avoided, the Harris today it would find itself in a more politically solid situation. The question to ask then is: is it possible that his campaign does not realize this fact? That Waltz that he was the weakest profile among the possible vice candidates was clear to everyone. Just as it is clear to everyone that the Harris has problems with one vote, the Catholic one, potentially decisive in a crucial state like Pennsylvania. It didn’t even take a genius to understand that the unpopularity of Biden he would probably have ballasted his deputy (a bit like what happened to Hubert Humphrey with Lyndon Johnson in 1968). A further aspect to consider is that, currently campaigning with Liz Cheneythe Harris could increase the risk of defections to his left: exactly what he should avoid if he wants to conquer the Rust Belt in November.
The doubt is then legitimate. Or the vice president’s campaign is in the hands of courageous visionaries who have developed a brilliant but incomprehensible strategy to most. Or we have to think that it is led by naive people. In reality, if you think about it, a third, somewhat behind-the-scenes possibility also arises, but should not be ruled out a priori. What if someone, from the inside, was betting against the Harris? Let us always remember that, in July, the rising stars of the Democratic Party – Gavin Newsom, Josh Shapiro, Gretchen Whitmer – they avoided taking the field, to avoid the risk of being burned three months before the vote. It is therefore clear that for them and for those parts of the Democratic establishment that support them, the fateful date is not 2024: if anything, it is 2028. For this reason, perhaps, the Harris he would do well to pay attention to what is going on in his own home. Beyond the facade unity, it is not at all obvious that everyone in the Asinello is rooting for her.
