By Charles M. Blow
“If Donald Trump would just remain silent for a few days, he would likely win the presidency,” remarked pollster Frank Luntz last week. He further suggested that if Kamala Harris and Tim Walz “would be straightforward with the American populace, it would guarantee their election, but they’re too cautious.”
But what does “being straightforward” entail? For Harris, it involves positioning herself to foster deeper connections with undecided voters, the “final 5%,” give or take, that I think she must engage with to secure a win.
For many, that connection has already been established or was never a requirement of our support. For us, Harris isn’t just the leading candidate; she’s the only viable option — a crucial choice against the threat of escalating authoritarianism.
Yet, as of mid-September, a quarter of voters indicated they still needed to learn more about her, in contrast to only 10% who felt that way about Trump. There was at least one other recent major-party nominee met with similar uncertainty: Mitt Romney in the summer of 2012. Ultimately, Romney lost that election even though he was virtually equal to Barack Obama in national polling by the second week of October.
I was optimistic that Harris’ campaign of positivity would keep her momentum strong and that her polling would continue to rise. However, according to FiveThirtyEight, Harris and Trump now have nearly equal odds of winning.
One interpretation is that voters still need clarity on Harris’ positions, especially regarding issues where her stances have evolved. Another way to view this is as a sign of her lack of connection with voters as a candidate.
I don’t see this as a critical flaw in her campaign, but rather as a potential opportunity.
It’s not that Harris should step back from conveying happiness, because, as pollster Cornell Belcher stated, “It’s what brought her to this point.” He encouraged her to maintain that aspect of her message just as Obama maintained “hope” in 2008, even amidst natural disasters and a financial downturn.
However, what the Harris campaign must do — and is working on — Belcher noted, is to incorporate specific issues like housing affordability and healthcare “under the umbrella of joy.”
The campaign doesn’t require a strategy to distance itself from joy, but it certainly needs a strategy that adds to joy.
In my view, this approach should also extend to their press strategy. The campaign has relied heavily on influencers and entertainers — often in friendly media outlets where Harris faces minimal scrutiny — but is gradually introducing more challenging environments, like her recent appearance on “60 Minutes.”
Nevertheless, her campaign needs to go further. Harris needs to step away from the rally stages for direct engagements with individual voters.
I took the time to watch or revisit a dozen of Harris’ events since the Democratic National Convention. Her rallies, which showcase impressive message discipline, revolve around a fairly conventional stump speech: detailing plans and policies interspersed with anecdotes from her life and critiques of Trump.
However, the rallies often seem insufficient to create organic moments, to facilitate personal interaction, for a doubtful voter to truly understand who she is beyond politics. What is glaringly lacking are more town hall-style gatherings or unmediated, unscripted engagements with regular Americans.
Some of the most significant and humanizing experiences for presidential candidates occur in these more intimate settings, as seen in 2008 when John McCain corrected a supporter who questioned Obama’s background and when Hillary Clinton became emotional while discussing the challenges of campaigning with a small group of voters.
While the Republican National Convention was underway, Obama visited smaller venues to connect with voters in swing states. At a farm in Ohio, he said, “They’re going to attempt to instill fear of me,” but, “You spread the word, don’t let them deceive you.” His strategy was not only to counterbalance the RNC but also to address the skepticism that Republicans were fostering about him. His direct engagement with voters was key in making him relatable and understandable. That’s what Harris needs as this campaign approaches its conclusion.
I recognize there is risk involved, which the campaign appears hesitant to embrace. However, in their efforts to protect Harris from “gotcha” moments, they are also missing opportunities for her to create powerful experiences that could expand her appeal beyond her core supporters to those still uncertain.
As Democratic strategist Donna Brazile noted, “You cannot connect with people from a platform or a stage,” instead, “You need to be present in the neighborhoods, communicate that you need their support and listen.”
Harris has run an impressive campaign, one accelerated by the extraordinary path she took to become her party’s nominee. But now she must conclude it in the manner many longer campaigns initiate: by emphasizing personal politics that win over hesitant voters.
