It's Harris's Race to Lose

But a win is not guaranteed. Here's what she should do.

For those who care that Kamala Harris win the presidency — I know you are many — I'll say now that you're in luck. This is clearly Harris's race to win or lose.

Kamala Harris, if she doesn't screw up, can win this race hands down. It will be work, no question, but in the end, barring an own goal-type error, she can win it walking away. She has momentum where Trump has none; and more, she has headroom — the ability to win undecideds — where Trump, again, has none. I'm certain Trump has peaked.

Trump’s Ceiling

Why is this so? Ask yourself this: How likely is it that Trump has already won every vote he's ever going to get?

Start with the polling. Trump was at 47% when he was wounded and when his opponent was still Biden. He’s had no bump from the assassination attempt and none from his convention. In fact, since early August Trump's polling has flattened, to 46% in the RCP composite and 45% in Nate Silver's model.

Here’s the RCP polling data showing Harris with a two-point lead. Notice the flatness of Trump’s polling numbers in early August.

Nate Sliver has her further ahead. Here Trump’s polling holds flat at 44%, starting in late July.

The swing-state polling is moving toward Harris as well:

NPR’s analysis now has all seven of the most closely watched swing states as toss-ups, moving all of the Sun Belt states from Lean Republican previously. … In a map based strictly on the polls, Harris is now exactly at 270, the number needed to win.

I believe that Trump's ceiling is 45%, and he'll never see polling above it.

The Loss of the ‘Double-Hater’ Doesn’t Help Trump

A second reason the race is Harris’s to lose: Through mid-July, Americans have lived in a world where most of us wanted neither candidate to run. These were the double-haters — “I hate them both.”

Then Biden dropped out, and we now live in a world where double-haters have become single-haters. Harris is not Joe Biden, but Trump is still Trump. Biden dropping out does nothing for Trump's desirability.

Here's Ipsos in January on that double dissatisfaction:

In January, 70% didn’t want Biden to run, and 56% didn’t want Trump to run. In August, with Biden gone, those people are free to choose Harris or to not vote. That expands her ceiling, while Trump is still Trump.

I admit polling can change and is often wrong. But it seems almost certain the data we have before us says Harris is in control.

Where Harris Could Go Wrong

Harris could still lose, however. Despite the radiant glow emanating from the Chicago Convention — how often have you heard the word joy? — there are tripwires at her feet and black swans above.

Foreign Policy

First, there's her foreign policy. From her Acceptance speech:

As Commander-in-Chief, I will ensure America always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world.

Really? “Lethal” tells too much of the truth. Remember, we renamed the Department of War to the Department of Defense in 1947, when we went on offence against Russia. “Lethal” is what you call killers, not homeland protectors.

But “lethal” does describe us — an aggressive, interventionist, imperial global power. This quasi-neocon hawking may not lose her the election — directly — but its truth will make many uneasy, just like this truth makes people uneasy:

When first I come to America, I know nothing. How to dress, what to eat. … On the street I hear this phrase — you know this phrase? — “American values.” And I think, what does it mean?

Financial values, I understand. Money. What a thing is worth. Human values, this also makes sense. The things we love. Family. I bambini. But this “American values” — land of the free, home of the brave — this I don't know.

And then I learn the history of this country. Your slavery, the smallpox in the blankets, how you stole the land from the natives. And I realize ... to be an American is to pretend. Capisce? You pretend to be one thing when really you are something else.

Despite the bipartisan flood of war money coming from Washington — from the government’s pocket to Lockheed’s with blood in between — the mood in the country is increasingly uneasy about it. Here’s RealClearPolling on Biden’s approval of his handling of Russia/Ukraine as of a few months ago:

One of the strongest objections from the left to Hillary Clinton’s candidacy was her extreme hawkishness. Harris could easily step into that trap, either now or after a win.

‘Clear Support of Genocide’

Her martial stance could also cost her indirectly. Gaza hangs over the Democratic Party's head like the Sword of Damocles, and Harris, at her risk, may choose to stand under it. Here's Harris's full statement on Gaza from her Convention acceptance speech:

With respect to the war in Gaza. President Biden and I are working around the clock. Because now is the time to get a hostage deal and ceasefire done.

Let me be clear: I will always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself and I will always ensure Israel has the ability to defend itself. Because the people of Israel must never again face the horror that the terrorist organization Hamas caused on October 7th. Including unspeakable sexual violence and the massacre of young people at a music festival. At the same time, what has happened in Gaza over the past 10 months is devastating. So many innocent lives lost. Desperate, hungry people fleeing for safety, over and over again. The scale of suffering is heartbreaking.

President Biden and I are working to end this war such that Israel is secure, the hostages are released, the suffering in Gaza ends, and the Palestinian people can realize their right to dignity. Security. Freedom. And self-determination. [emphasis mine]

Ian Welsh called the sentences I bolded above “clear support of a genocide” and added, “she's toed the line on Israel.” Indeed she has.

Ryan Grim says this in reference to the Harris-led Convention's refusal to allow even the most acquiescent Palestinian to speak to the podium:

That has to be the calculation, that they're worried they'll lose more votes in Pennsylvania than they'll gain in Michigan. It's impossible to see any other reason that that they would say no to a vetted speech from a state representative who's saying “I support the Harris administration.”

That calculation could cost them votes they need. The more she gets tied to Gaza and genocide, the more her own ceiling is lowered.

If Harris loses, it’s because of her own lost votes, not new votes Trump won over.

The ‘Opportunity Economy’ Trap

Another mistake that could cost her is not articulating a clear domestic policy. There are already questions around her ties to billionaires, especially those in California, and questions around her brother-in-law, Tony West.

Her acceptance speech was ambiguous about economics: “That’s why we will create what I call an opportunity economy. An opportunity economy where everyone has a chance to compete and a chance to succeed.”

“Opportunity economy" sounds very neoliberal. Social Security is not an “opportunity” plan; it’s a “give people money” plan. Giving people money is not what rich people do; they hoard it for themselves. And in case you’ve forgotten, neoliberals handed us Trump by refusing to let us have Sanders.

So her challenge is to appear to mean her economic words in the way that suffering Americans want her to mean them. If people become cynical about her real allegiances, her ceiling drops even further. She doesn't want too many people thinking like this (Ryan Grim at the link above; emphasis mine):

So the advantage of her to us [reporters], the advantage of her not giving an interview is that we don't then have to go through the fiction of pretending like what she says actually reflects what she believes.

It's like, “Oh, Kamala Harris says she’s going to do X on XY policy.” We'd put that in a headline and write an article about it as if that was true, when it’s just stuff she's saying during the campaign.

So she's actually maybe doing us a favor by not lying to us. That’s the best gloss I'd put on it.

She may be doing reporters a favor, but she may not be doing herself one. There's a fine line between what’s vague enough to avoid lying, yet specific enough to sustain people’s reasonable hope. After all, this is still a pre-revolutionary country. She doesn't want voters going back to a “hate them both” world. As I wrote before the 2016 election:

The squeeze is on, and unless the rich who run the game for their benefit alone decide to stand down and let the rest of us catch our breath and a break, there will be no letting up on the reaction. What we’re watching is just the beginning. Unless the rich and their Establishment enablers stand down, this won’t be the end but a start, and just a start.

The trap for neoliberals has not gone away.

This is Harris's race to win or lose. She can guarantee winning by getting real on Gaza, and making sure that those skeptical of her ties to wealth, are told plainly and clearly — in a “read my lips” way — that they're wrong.