I kind of think she'll get the equivalent of two convention bounces, before eventually finding her baseline. It's just hard to know where her baseline.
I agree with you.. also curious "how high" the bounce goes... also agree with Nate, I think 5 is the 'magic number'... If her popular vote lead surpasses 5 nationally by next weekend I think that'd be considered a success for her. If it is "only" 3 or 4 points after the convention, I think the Trump campaign would be thrilled.
No, she'll have a 96 hour national infomercial with Spielberg/Katzenberg-style production, unlimited budget, A-list celebrities, and polished (on message) speeches delivered in primetime. She will get a bump, Dems typically do that stuff really well (she won't be introduced by Lee Greenwood and Dana White - let's just say)
**I am NOT referring to the substance/merits/policy - only the spectacle of a convention; the "theater" of it will almost certainly be good
It seems to me that we are in uncharted territory. Trump is, in some ways, more of an incumbent than Harris. He has a whole presidential term to defend, while Harris remains a cypher. It is only recently that the press (and others) have been calling it the Biden-Harris administration, rather than just the Biden administration. It remains to be seen if, on Election Day, the polls have any connection with the reality on the ground. (I'm not suggesting that they are skewed in any particular direction, just that they may be off more than usual.)
Incumbent shouldn't be an advantage when domestic conditions are poor. Voters blame whoever is in charge when they are unhappy regardless of who actually holds responsibility.
Given negative sentiment on the economy, direction of the country, crime, illegal immigration, etc. I think it's obvious that Trump is going to try to remind voters that Harris has been serving in the administration for the last four years.
Agree with most of what you’ve written, until getting to what is “obvious” regarding what Trump’s tactics should be. Making the case for Harris’s responsibility for the prevailing “negative sentiment” many Americans hold in a variety areas because she’s Biden’s VP, is hardly snap-your-fingers that simple. Primarily because it isn’t true, which most Americans know; that she, like most VPs we’ve known, was just a name on the door, and hardly an activist “incumbent”. But, second – and most importantly - you’re asking Trump to suddenly become what he’s not, a clever wordsmith able to reach beyond friendly audiences; convincing undecideds that Harris, contrary to conventional knowledge, really was a hands-on “incumbent”, responsible for crafting the current state of the “economy, direction of the country, crime, illegal immigration, etc.” – which, simply said, he’s incapable of doing. No, my friend, if his recent Tic-Tac lecture on inflation is an example, he’s still causing more eye-rolls than gaining adherents, and not even the threat of losing will change him.
Also, if come November annual inflation is trending down toward 2%, we’ve had a couple interest rate cuts, and the market continues to make gains after its recent setback, the “vibes” around the economy may be very different than they are right now.
I’d agree if we were speaking of a more economically-sophisticated electorate, but we’re not. I think if the economy absolutely crushes it between now and the election, that negative vibe will linger. Despite monthly record jobs reports, continued stock market gains, and, at least, an inflation rate that holds steady, the damage already done to the purchasing power of consumers will not suddenly reverse itself, and THAT is the American economy for the electorate.
Yep. Many people think Inflation="prices higher", so Inflation solved="prices go back to previous levels". The number of people I talk to that think inflation hasn't gone down because "prices haven't gone back down" is depressingly high.
I’m less thinking about people interpreting those numbers or even listening to pendants as much as I am some people starting to feel the effects. Sure the prices won’t go back down to pre-pandemic levels but after a few interest rate cuts some of these corporations that have been laying off white collar jobs may start reversing course and hiring again. And the college educated, white collar suburbanite is more and more becoming an important swing demographic.
IIRC, the incumbency adjustment that the model applies is conditional on several economic indicators (GDP growth, inflation, unemployment, etc.) such that it will typically provide a negative adjustment if the incumbent presided over conditions that tended to contribute to their defeat, or a positive adjustment otherwise, based on historical outcomes. In this case, due to mixed indicators, this results in only a small incumbent advantage.
Note as well that the term "incumbent" is a bit of a misnomer in the model because it doesn't actually adjust based on whether they are an incumbent. Rather, it's based on the incumbent *party*, regardless of whether that candidate is actually the incumbent. For example, in 2008, McCain represented the incumbent party, and in 2016, Hillary Clinton represented the incumbent party. This is generally consistent with actual voter behavior, and provides much more data to train the model on.
I predict Harris will get the convention bump on top of her momentum bump. I have no scientific data, just vibes. But I really think people want something to feel good and positive about, and the Democratic Party looks more fun and hopeful. By adopting a more religious and conservative appearance, the Republicans do not look like a good time. They look more like they want to prevent anyone from enjoying themselves. And post-covid, people are really looking more for self-care and having fun.
Harris will lose the election if she runs on Biden's messaging about how strong the economy is. She needs to run on a message of 'Stocks have rebounded from the pandemic, but there will be no recovery until food is affordable without needing a second job, until rents are affordable, and home ownership is a dream possible for more than just the wealthy. Take credit for what is good but do not embrace incumbency.
This is the duality problem for the Democrats. The party is run by "brahmin left" who are elated over the performance of their nicely diversified investment portfolios. They are trying to reach people who don't have 401k's and are reminded every time they go the grocery store that inflation is bad. KH shouldn't even mention the stock market except when she is meeting with wealthy donors.
I think Reagan's 1984 "Stay the Course" message is useful.
It can be used to point out things were worse and things are being addressed, and that the policies take time.
Certainly the improvement from 2020 -> 2024 is a lot more dramatic than 1980 -> 1984 and should provide an even better base for this message than it did for Reagan.
It is a better message than telling people they are wrong, and would let Harris say things are improving, but that those improvements haven't reached everyone yet.
Good article, in that way too many people are expressing way too much confidence now on Harris winning the election. Yes, Trump is making mistakes. Yes, Trump is looking desperate at times. But I distinctly remember August 2016, which was quite terrible for Trump. I'll bring back some memories: this was when he talked about "the Second amendment people", suggesting a possible assassination of Clinton. He asked Russia to release information on Her Emails. He suggested Ted Cruz's father was involved in the JFK assassination... he was all over the place, and falling on the polls. But we all know how it ended up.
You're so correct on the overconfidence in Harris (a 55% favorite being treated like a 90% favorite)... On vibes alone a person would shocked to know that she's up only 2% nationally (and some polls have Trump tied or ahead... NATIONALLY?!?) 'Blue' States like PA, WI, MI which he never led in 2016 or 2020... he routinely is either tied, trailing by 2-4; or ahead by 1-2)
It's like a football team that's gained about 75 yards of total offense, has 2 fumbles, 2 interceptions, 2 missed field goals... and the scoreboard shows them trailing 13-10 starting the 4th Quarter.
I like the comment that Harris will need to switch up her personas regularly to stay fresh. Voters are odd. They want you to be more competent than they are themselves, but they also want you to be relatable. A cheerful wonk if you will.
I've been thinking that since memes seem to be pushing things a lot these days, her team ought to have her do a fast daily video making fun of the Trump lie of the day. You can tell that the media is tiring of the constant fact checking, but a fun video showing the lie, the truth and the equivalent of a demeaning finger wag might go viral.
If the campaign were to do this, it will make it critical for her or Walz to avoid any semblance of an untruth.
I also think that the bounce is real, and it's simply that Harris is neither Biden or Trump. I know that most elections in my lifetime have involved choosing the least objectionable candidates and not for someone. But this election is that situation on steroids. I think Nikki Haley was absolutely right when she said the first party that chooses a younger candidate would win. None of that is to say that Harris can't throw it away, but if she can keep from making any key mistakes and acquits herself well in the debates, I think her chances are very good.
I agree with Lori - this is uncharted in the era of polling. Unless I am missing somebody, isn't Teddy Roosevelt that last former president to run while not being the incumbent? That's a generation before Dewey Defeats Truman.
Kamala has been relatively quiet as vice president, while Trump has been in the country's face more than any former president I can remember. Frankly, he's been more in the news than Biden over the last 3+ years. All of the trappings of incumbent versus challenger are muddled this go around.
Trying to model something that hasn't happened in over a century is not going to be easy.
I don’t have numbers to back this up, but the feeling coming out of the RNC was horrible this year. For non-diehards like me the speech went from good to bad to atrocious. The Vance pick was the worst possible. And seemingly immediately, Biden, aka the worst candidate in history, dropped out. And the media went hard for Kamala.
It was lousy (as an R partisan I had such high hopes) But it's not complicated - look at the *featured* speakers: Vance, Don Jr, Eric Trump, Dana White - these are not inspiring speakers/people. Hulk was fun, and some of the "everyday citizens" were interesting... but just on speaking skill (keeping politics out of it) Obama, Clinton (Bill), and a few others they'll surprise with will be 10x more exciting.
*EXAMPLE: Imagine if Trump had picked Youngkin for VP - a big time, optimistic, talented speaker (and had him introduced by his Lt Gov Winsome Sears - black, female, veteran, great speaker) He could've easily given Haley a primetime slot; making her the featured speaker instead of granting her a 6 minute 'hostage' speech. Tons of missed opportunities.
*Probably the last great R convention (star power) was 2004 in NYC. Arnold, Rudy, McCain, George W -- a different era of course (but they were all pretty big stars back then)
I don’t think it’s “against Biden” as much as it is she’s expressing our own personal goals as President. It’s like if your boss leaves the company and you get promoted to take his old job. Sure you would try to respect your boss’s policies but surely as a diffent person with different life experiences, you’ll have a different vision for how the role should be executed. I don’t think that changing things up necessarily means you’re saying the old boss is wrong, but more like this is just your management style.
Not sure they are. There's a lot of good, but not for working class, some middle class, and those living in poverty. Wages are up for many. But for those who it isn't, they don't feel good about it. It's individual. Obviously, I'm happy to report that I'm fine, but it's a big country. Abortion rights will probably be a bigger factor. Immigration has already become a smaller issue.
But her old boss didn't leave the company. And presumably (unless "day 1" is nothing more than a cynical ploy to win votes, which is possible) the only reason she isn't trying to implement these policies now is that Biden disagrees with them.
Any time a presidential candidate says theyll do something that obviously will require congress to do, they are implying they will do it if their party also wins the house and senate. Biden does not have a friendly house right now.
If she’s saying she’ll do this just with executive power, that means she’s prepared to take on the inevitable court challenges. Maybe Biden preferred not to do that. Again, just different ways of operating.
Also, this is kind of a “pick your battles” type of scenario. Just because Biden didn’t pursue this, doesn’t mean he disagrees with it as a policy. In politics, you have to spend your political capital wisely and Harris wanting to spend it on this is, again, just a different management style. You can’t literally do everything you want, especially if what you want will ruffle some feathers.
and?... still a great analogy. She wants to take what was good, build on it, and learn from what doesn't work. She definitely does not agree with the Gaza position. She called for a ceasefire 4 months ago when Biden Blinken and Nod were still thinking Netanyahu was listening.
Haven't we learned anything from the last, oh, 20 years? Be who you want to be. Run as you will. Harris should run as the incumbent when it suits her and as the outsider as needed.
Harris is in charge and the incumbent when talking about policy and the outsider talking about Trump, his midnight tweets from the gold toilet, his policies, his justices, etc. Harris is an expert at code switching. Look at her pivoting from her experience as a prosecutor to being VP. The lesson? No shame, all offense, keep the pressure on him and for the love of god, please talk about his bad taste I think if you forgo the nicknames and talk about how tacky his taste is you will drive him crazy.
If incumbency isn't an advantage at the very least it shouldn't be a disadvantage. If it is that suggests to me that the underlying issue is this specific admjnistration and this specific economy.
So glad you called out that incumbency is not an advantage anymore! The reluctance for political scientists to give that up reminds me of the saying from the natural sciences, "Science advanced one funeral at a time."
When I was reading the challenger and incumbent sentence, then read Nate’s comment, I immediately thought the same Nate is thinking of. Yes, I believe that is how voters see it. I immediately thought Harris as the challenger.
"It’s hard to exaggerate how bad this policy is. It is, in all but name, a sweeping set of government-enforced price controls across every industry, not only food. Supply and demand would no longer determine prices or profit levels. Some far-off Washington bureaucrats would. The FTC would be able to tell, say, a Kroger in Ohio the acceptable price it can charge for milk."
In many ways, I think the closest comparison to Harris is Trump - someone who effectively avoided much of the usual questions of policy. Harris has a much more marketable personality, but seems to have some abysmal policies.
Frankly it’s given Trump a pass, too? His stated intention of taking control of interest rate setting is a MUCH bigger alarm bell. 🤷♂️ I see very little discussion of that.
It would also have an immediate effect. Price gouging laws, crafted lightly, can lead to rare enforcement, and right now there’s not even inflation.
Trump has also gotten this pass *for sure*, and everything he says is designed to avoid talking policy. This made more sense before he was President, it feels much less effective now.
My main gripe is that the Dems are doubling down on personality marketing with Kamala. Centrist Dem who doesn't have terrible policies and isn't aging > Liberal Dem who has quite terrible policies and isn't aging.
This is when very dubious policy overlaps with popular policy statements. I don’t think this has anything to do with leaning on personality.
My guess is she knows very well that only the lightest of laws could get through Congress, on par with the lightweight stuff you’ll find scattered at state level that deals primarily with obvious post-natural disaster situations
The question j have is whether Harris got her convention bump early in the unusual conditions by which she became the nominee.
Same. A case of premature exhilaration.
I kind of think she'll get the equivalent of two convention bounces, before eventually finding her baseline. It's just hard to know where her baseline.
I agree with you.. also curious "how high" the bounce goes... also agree with Nate, I think 5 is the 'magic number'... If her popular vote lead surpasses 5 nationally by next weekend I think that'd be considered a success for her. If it is "only" 3 or 4 points after the convention, I think the Trump campaign would be thrilled.
No, she'll have a 96 hour national infomercial with Spielberg/Katzenberg-style production, unlimited budget, A-list celebrities, and polished (on message) speeches delivered in primetime. She will get a bump, Dems typically do that stuff really well (she won't be introduced by Lee Greenwood and Dana White - let's just say)
**I am NOT referring to the substance/merits/policy - only the spectacle of a convention; the "theater" of it will almost certainly be good
I have thought the same thing. Obviously, we'll see in a few days!
It seems to me that we are in uncharted territory. Trump is, in some ways, more of an incumbent than Harris. He has a whole presidential term to defend, while Harris remains a cypher. It is only recently that the press (and others) have been calling it the Biden-Harris administration, rather than just the Biden administration. It remains to be seen if, on Election Day, the polls have any connection with the reality on the ground. (I'm not suggesting that they are skewed in any particular direction, just that they may be off more than usual.)
Up until this point voters viewed Trump's first term in a much warmer light than the current administration.
Only voters who forgot what Trump's first term was like. Granted, a lot of voters appear to have forgotten.
Plenty of pundits noted that voters associated Trump with the first three years of his term rather than the Covid period. Make of that what you will.
And the first three years were also very bad. The economy he inherited from Obama was still humming along nicely, but he was still a chaos monkey.
And as soon as Trump took office, he received full credit for the Obama economy.
Wrong and stupid, but sadly true.
"Trump nostalgia" was ranked as a major factor behind Trump's lead over Biden in the polls
I don’t think it was “Trump nostalgia” - it was nostalgia for the “before times”, before covid and before George Floyd.
And how should the model treat this situation?
My own intuition would be to cut the incumbancy weight for Harris by 50%.
But of course there's no past data to analyze on this.
1968, Humphrey in for Johnson is superficially analogous. But that was a long time ago and the overall situation then was a lot different.
The model is based off incumbent party, not a specific incumbent person.
Incumbent shouldn't be an advantage when domestic conditions are poor. Voters blame whoever is in charge when they are unhappy regardless of who actually holds responsibility.
Given negative sentiment on the economy, direction of the country, crime, illegal immigration, etc. I think it's obvious that Trump is going to try to remind voters that Harris has been serving in the administration for the last four years.
Agree with most of what you’ve written, until getting to what is “obvious” regarding what Trump’s tactics should be. Making the case for Harris’s responsibility for the prevailing “negative sentiment” many Americans hold in a variety areas because she’s Biden’s VP, is hardly snap-your-fingers that simple. Primarily because it isn’t true, which most Americans know; that she, like most VPs we’ve known, was just a name on the door, and hardly an activist “incumbent”. But, second – and most importantly - you’re asking Trump to suddenly become what he’s not, a clever wordsmith able to reach beyond friendly audiences; convincing undecideds that Harris, contrary to conventional knowledge, really was a hands-on “incumbent”, responsible for crafting the current state of the “economy, direction of the country, crime, illegal immigration, etc.” – which, simply said, he’s incapable of doing. No, my friend, if his recent Tic-Tac lecture on inflation is an example, he’s still causing more eye-rolls than gaining adherents, and not even the threat of losing will change him.
Also, if come November annual inflation is trending down toward 2%, we’ve had a couple interest rate cuts, and the market continues to make gains after its recent setback, the “vibes” around the economy may be very different than they are right now.
I’d agree if we were speaking of a more economically-sophisticated electorate, but we’re not. I think if the economy absolutely crushes it between now and the election, that negative vibe will linger. Despite monthly record jobs reports, continued stock market gains, and, at least, an inflation rate that holds steady, the damage already done to the purchasing power of consumers will not suddenly reverse itself, and THAT is the American economy for the electorate.
Yep. Many people think Inflation="prices higher", so Inflation solved="prices go back to previous levels". The number of people I talk to that think inflation hasn't gone down because "prices haven't gone back down" is depressingly high.
I think the problem is that you have a k shaped economy and the bottom half of the k has a very different outlook than the top.
I’m less thinking about people interpreting those numbers or even listening to pendants as much as I am some people starting to feel the effects. Sure the prices won’t go back down to pre-pandemic levels but after a few interest rate cuts some of these corporations that have been laying off white collar jobs may start reversing course and hiring again. And the college educated, white collar suburbanite is more and more becoming an important swing demographic.
IIRC, the incumbency adjustment that the model applies is conditional on several economic indicators (GDP growth, inflation, unemployment, etc.) such that it will typically provide a negative adjustment if the incumbent presided over conditions that tended to contribute to their defeat, or a positive adjustment otherwise, based on historical outcomes. In this case, due to mixed indicators, this results in only a small incumbent advantage.
Note as well that the term "incumbent" is a bit of a misnomer in the model because it doesn't actually adjust based on whether they are an incumbent. Rather, it's based on the incumbent *party*, regardless of whether that candidate is actually the incumbent. For example, in 2008, McCain represented the incumbent party, and in 2016, Hillary Clinton represented the incumbent party. This is generally consistent with actual voter behavior, and provides much more data to train the model on.
I predict Harris will get the convention bump on top of her momentum bump. I have no scientific data, just vibes. But I really think people want something to feel good and positive about, and the Democratic Party looks more fun and hopeful. By adopting a more religious and conservative appearance, the Republicans do not look like a good time. They look more like they want to prevent anyone from enjoying themselves. And post-covid, people are really looking more for self-care and having fun.
Hate to agree but suspect you’ll be proven correct.
Harris will lose the election if she runs on Biden's messaging about how strong the economy is. She needs to run on a message of 'Stocks have rebounded from the pandemic, but there will be no recovery until food is affordable without needing a second job, until rents are affordable, and home ownership is a dream possible for more than just the wealthy. Take credit for what is good but do not embrace incumbency.
This is the duality problem for the Democrats. The party is run by "brahmin left" who are elated over the performance of their nicely diversified investment portfolios. They are trying to reach people who don't have 401k's and are reminded every time they go the grocery store that inflation is bad. KH shouldn't even mention the stock market except when she is meeting with wealthy donors.
I think Reagan's 1984 "Stay the Course" message is useful.
It can be used to point out things were worse and things are being addressed, and that the policies take time.
Certainly the improvement from 2020 -> 2024 is a lot more dramatic than 1980 -> 1984 and should provide an even better base for this message than it did for Reagan.
It is a better message than telling people they are wrong, and would let Harris say things are improving, but that those improvements haven't reached everyone yet.
Good article, in that way too many people are expressing way too much confidence now on Harris winning the election. Yes, Trump is making mistakes. Yes, Trump is looking desperate at times. But I distinctly remember August 2016, which was quite terrible for Trump. I'll bring back some memories: this was when he talked about "the Second amendment people", suggesting a possible assassination of Clinton. He asked Russia to release information on Her Emails. He suggested Ted Cruz's father was involved in the JFK assassination... he was all over the place, and falling on the polls. But we all know how it ended up.
You're so correct on the overconfidence in Harris (a 55% favorite being treated like a 90% favorite)... On vibes alone a person would shocked to know that she's up only 2% nationally (and some polls have Trump tied or ahead... NATIONALLY?!?) 'Blue' States like PA, WI, MI which he never led in 2016 or 2020... he routinely is either tied, trailing by 2-4; or ahead by 1-2)
It's like a football team that's gained about 75 yards of total offense, has 2 fumbles, 2 interceptions, 2 missed field goals... and the scoreboard shows them trailing 13-10 starting the 4th Quarter.
I like the comment that Harris will need to switch up her personas regularly to stay fresh. Voters are odd. They want you to be more competent than they are themselves, but they also want you to be relatable. A cheerful wonk if you will.
I've been thinking that since memes seem to be pushing things a lot these days, her team ought to have her do a fast daily video making fun of the Trump lie of the day. You can tell that the media is tiring of the constant fact checking, but a fun video showing the lie, the truth and the equivalent of a demeaning finger wag might go viral.
If the campaign were to do this, it will make it critical for her or Walz to avoid any semblance of an untruth.
I also think that the bounce is real, and it's simply that Harris is neither Biden or Trump. I know that most elections in my lifetime have involved choosing the least objectionable candidates and not for someone. But this election is that situation on steroids. I think Nikki Haley was absolutely right when she said the first party that chooses a younger candidate would win. None of that is to say that Harris can't throw it away, but if she can keep from making any key mistakes and acquits herself well in the debates, I think her chances are very good.
I agree with Lori - this is uncharted in the era of polling. Unless I am missing somebody, isn't Teddy Roosevelt that last former president to run while not being the incumbent? That's a generation before Dewey Defeats Truman.
Kamala has been relatively quiet as vice president, while Trump has been in the country's face more than any former president I can remember. Frankly, he's been more in the news than Biden over the last 3+ years. All of the trappings of incumbent versus challenger are muddled this go around.
Trying to model something that hasn't happened in over a century is not going to be easy.
I don’t have numbers to back this up, but the feeling coming out of the RNC was horrible this year. For non-diehards like me the speech went from good to bad to atrocious. The Vance pick was the worst possible. And seemingly immediately, Biden, aka the worst candidate in history, dropped out. And the media went hard for Kamala.
There was no bounce this year.
It was lousy (as an R partisan I had such high hopes) But it's not complicated - look at the *featured* speakers: Vance, Don Jr, Eric Trump, Dana White - these are not inspiring speakers/people. Hulk was fun, and some of the "everyday citizens" were interesting... but just on speaking skill (keeping politics out of it) Obama, Clinton (Bill), and a few others they'll surprise with will be 10x more exciting.
*EXAMPLE: Imagine if Trump had picked Youngkin for VP - a big time, optimistic, talented speaker (and had him introduced by his Lt Gov Winsome Sears - black, female, veteran, great speaker) He could've easily given Haley a primetime slot; making her the featured speaker instead of granting her a 6 minute 'hostage' speech. Tons of missed opportunities.
*Probably the last great R convention (star power) was 2004 in NYC. Arnold, Rudy, McCain, George W -- a different era of course (but they were all pretty big stars back then)
A good contextual orientation to the state of play
It is an odd setup, especially as Kamala increasingly runs against Biden with her "day 1" promises.
I don’t think it’s “against Biden” as much as it is she’s expressing our own personal goals as President. It’s like if your boss leaves the company and you get promoted to take his old job. Sure you would try to respect your boss’s policies but surely as a diffent person with different life experiences, you’ll have a different vision for how the role should be executed. I don’t think that changing things up necessarily means you’re saying the old boss is wrong, but more like this is just your management style.
I love your analogy. I think that's what the country (who are so happy it's not Biden) feels too.
The needle she has to thread is that voters are overwhelmingly unhappy with the state of the economy.
Not sure they are. There's a lot of good, but not for working class, some middle class, and those living in poverty. Wages are up for many. But for those who it isn't, they don't feel good about it. It's individual. Obviously, I'm happy to report that I'm fine, but it's a big country. Abortion rights will probably be a bigger factor. Immigration has already become a smaller issue.
But her old boss didn't leave the company. And presumably (unless "day 1" is nothing more than a cynical ploy to win votes, which is possible) the only reason she isn't trying to implement these policies now is that Biden disagrees with them.
Any time a presidential candidate says theyll do something that obviously will require congress to do, they are implying they will do it if their party also wins the house and senate. Biden does not have a friendly house right now.
If she’s saying she’ll do this just with executive power, that means she’s prepared to take on the inevitable court challenges. Maybe Biden preferred not to do that. Again, just different ways of operating.
Also, this is kind of a “pick your battles” type of scenario. Just because Biden didn’t pursue this, doesn’t mean he disagrees with it as a policy. In politics, you have to spend your political capital wisely and Harris wanting to spend it on this is, again, just a different management style. You can’t literally do everything you want, especially if what you want will ruffle some feathers.
and?... still a great analogy. She wants to take what was good, build on it, and learn from what doesn't work. She definitely does not agree with the Gaza position. She called for a ceasefire 4 months ago when Biden Blinken and Nod were still thinking Netanyahu was listening.
Haven't we learned anything from the last, oh, 20 years? Be who you want to be. Run as you will. Harris should run as the incumbent when it suits her and as the outsider as needed.
Harris is in charge and the incumbent when talking about policy and the outsider talking about Trump, his midnight tweets from the gold toilet, his policies, his justices, etc. Harris is an expert at code switching. Look at her pivoting from her experience as a prosecutor to being VP. The lesson? No shame, all offense, keep the pressure on him and for the love of god, please talk about his bad taste I think if you forgo the nicknames and talk about how tacky his taste is you will drive him crazy.
If incumbency isn't an advantage at the very least it shouldn't be a disadvantage. If it is that suggests to me that the underlying issue is this specific admjnistration and this specific economy.
So glad you called out that incumbency is not an advantage anymore! The reluctance for political scientists to give that up reminds me of the saying from the natural sciences, "Science advanced one funeral at a time."
When I was reading the challenger and incumbent sentence, then read Nate’s comment, I immediately thought the same Nate is thinking of. Yes, I believe that is how voters see it. I immediately thought Harris as the challenger.
Harris benefitted tremendously from the negative Biden press, which at least felt designed to put the incumbent "vibes" on Biden as a scapegoat. Harris' policy positions are completely undiscussed, here is WaPo https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/08/15/kamala-harris-price-gouging-groceries/ on her price control policy:
"It’s hard to exaggerate how bad this policy is. It is, in all but name, a sweeping set of government-enforced price controls across every industry, not only food. Supply and demand would no longer determine prices or profit levels. Some far-off Washington bureaucrats would. The FTC would be able to tell, say, a Kroger in Ohio the acceptable price it can charge for milk."
In many ways, I think the closest comparison to Harris is Trump - someone who effectively avoided much of the usual questions of policy. Harris has a much more marketable personality, but seems to have some abysmal policies.
Frankly it’s given Trump a pass, too? His stated intention of taking control of interest rate setting is a MUCH bigger alarm bell. 🤷♂️ I see very little discussion of that.
It would also have an immediate effect. Price gouging laws, crafted lightly, can lead to rare enforcement, and right now there’s not even inflation.
Trump has also gotten this pass *for sure*, and everything he says is designed to avoid talking policy. This made more sense before he was President, it feels much less effective now.
My main gripe is that the Dems are doubling down on personality marketing with Kamala. Centrist Dem who doesn't have terrible policies and isn't aging > Liberal Dem who has quite terrible policies and isn't aging.
This is when very dubious policy overlaps with popular policy statements. I don’t think this has anything to do with leaning on personality.
My guess is she knows very well that only the lightest of laws could get through Congress, on par with the lightweight stuff you’ll find scattered at state level that deals primarily with obvious post-natural disaster situations