Could Kamala Harris potentially emulate Martin Schulz's role within the context of the United States?
The initial excitement wanes, poll numbers plummet, and the campaign teeters on the brink of disaster. Is Kamala Harris destroying her chances of winning the election at the last hurdle? Is she headed for a repeat of Hillary Clinton in 2016? German voters are reminded of the SPD in 2017. Here are three reasons why.
Four weeks ago, Kamala Harris seemed unstoppable. Her nomination was a breath of fresh air in the midst of the testosterone-filled campaign. She even managed to ignite some excitement during the convention and impressed with her performance in the TV debate. NBC pollsters then showed a clear five-point lead for the Democrat in September, with 49 percent of voters backing her against Trump's 44 percent.
But the tide has turned again. The same polling institute now shows a dead heat at 48 percent for both candidates. Other polls also suggest that the race for the White House is incredibly tight. Worse still, the trend suggests that Kamala Harris is likely to lose the election. "Since the start of autumn, Harris has lost momentum," explains pollster Jeff Horwitt. CNN warns that the US mood is at risk of turning sour. The "National Review" reports that panic has set in among Democrats.
For Harris, a tie in the national polls feels ominous. A narrow win might not be enough to secure the White House. In 2016, Hillary Clinton won 65.845 million votes compared to Trump's 62.980 million. However, he became president by winning the crucial swing states. This time, Trump is leading Harris in seven out of eight key states. Many Americans are having déjà vu, recalling when Hillary Clinton led the polls in late summer 2016 and the first woman in the White House seemed just around the corner.
Harris' floundering campaign surprises many observers, given her strong hand of cards: she has huge financial backing, with her campaign nearing the one-billion-dollar mark in donations. She has the support of the cultural elite, represents a generational shift, and embodies the sympathetic, decent America. The prospect of a woman, and a woman of color, winning the presidency for the first time also gives her campaign a media boost. Even her flamboyant opponent, Donald Trump, seemed to be making it easy for her with his brazen, egoistic lies.
However, her campaign is faltering for three reasons. First, Harris lacks a clear vision. Just being against Trump won't be enough to rally the majority behind her. Even the liberal "Washington Post" criticizes her for being politically weak. "Running without a vision is a great strategy for Kamala Harris to come in second," the paper chides at a candidate who isn't clear about what she stands for. As a result, she struggles to differentiate herself from Joe Biden and his political weaknesses.
Given the shifting sentiment in the US, Harris' vice presidency is becoming a liability. Her recent interview with ABC's "The View" where she couldn't name a single thing she would have done differently than Biden is a major blunder that Trump will exploit until election day. This is particularly evident in foreign policy, an area where the vice president typically excels. According to a Wall Street Journal poll, 50% of Americans believe Trump is better equipped to end the Ukraine war (39% for Harris), and he leads 48 to 33% in managing the Middle East conflict. On illegal migration, 51% think Trump can better control the border crisis compared to Harris' 38%.
No Response to the Rightward Shift
Secondly, Harris underestimates the powerful impact of the rightward shift in American society. The majority sentiment in the US, like many Western states, is shifting more towards the right than previously thought. Priorities and issues are rapidly changing from climate, gender, and social participation questions to security, order, and prosperity. Even authoritarian attitudes are gaining surprising acceptance. Donald Trump's aggressive rhetoric resonates because the tough is becoming a more popular figure than the conciliatory. Trump's massive promises to deport migrants, impose tariffs on trade competitors, and restore order to a chaotic world seem to resonate with the neo-right zeitgeist.
Trump even gets away with racist positions, warning about "outsiders with bad genes" infiltrating the country or Haitian migrants in Ohio eating pets - claims for which there's no evidence. The migration issue seems to be the focal point of the collective rightward shift. In this environment, Kamala Harris struggles to counter a Donald Trump who brazenly promises "the greatest deportation in the history of the United States" and declares in war-like rhetoric: "We will close the border. We will stop the invasion of illegals into our country. We will defend our territory. We will not be conquered."
Economic Incompetence
Thirdly, Harris struggles with her lack of economic competence. Currently, Americans consider this the most important election issue. Gallup found that 52% of Americans consider economic questions "extremely important" in their voting decision. In an ABC News/Ipsos poll, 59% say the economic situation is worsening despite a robust jobs market, decreasing inflation, and falling interest rates. The phrase "It's the economy, stupid!" helped Bill Clinton win the 1992 presidential election, but this time, Trump has seized the issue. 54% of Americans believe Trump has better economic instincts.
Despite enjoying widespread backing from East and West Coast elites, intellectuals, women, minorities like blacks and Latinos, and boasting an ethical edge, Harris might still fall short. She's grappling with defining her identity and message, and whispers of inadequacy are starting to echo. Her campaign appears to be trailing behind the zeitgeist and the conservative-leaning core of America, reserving a familiar ring to Martin Schulz's 2017 debacle, who initially had promising momentum but ultimately faltered.
Despite having a strong hand with financial backing, cultural elite support, and a media boost, Kamala Harris' campaign is struggling due to her lack of a clear vision and inability to differentiate herself from Joe Biden. This political weakness is Criticized by the liberal "Washington Post" and is making it hard for Harris to gain the majority's support beyond being just against Trump.
Furthermore, Harris underestimates the powerful impact of the rightward shift in American society, failing to counter Donald Trump's aggressive rhetoric and promises on immigration. This issue seems to be the focal point of the collective rightward shift, making it difficult for Harris to resonate with the majority of Americans who are shifting towards more conservative values.
