How would Kamala Harris fare against Donald Trump?
A poll suggests she'd fare better than Biden, Whitmer, and Newsom
In conservative circles, or at least in our echo chamber, it has long been assumed that Kamala Harris would be a weaker candidate for president than Joe Biden. Based on this assumption, many believed that in Harris, Biden had an insurance policy against being dumped by his party.
I’m not sure the view that Harris would be a weaker candidate than Biden was correct. Polling suggested that the two were about equally weak.
In any case, after Biden’s awful debate performance, Harris is almost certainly the stronger candidate. A post-debate poll by CNN shows her running 4 points better than Biden against Trump. Biden trails Trump by 6 points. Harris trails him by only 2, within the margin of error. (This, of course, is just one poll, so it might not accurately reflect the state of play.)
Harris does significantly better with key groups that Democrats rely on but that are resistant to Biden’s candidacy. She wins nonwhite voters by 29 points, compared to Biden’s 21. She wins 18-34 year-olds by a point. Biden loses them by 6.
It’s also significant, and perhaps surprising, that Harris runs better against Trump in this poll than both Gretchen Whitmer and Gavin Newsom. These oft-mentioned alternatives to Biden don’t fare appreciably better than the president against Trump. Both trail the former president by 5 points.
It’s true that Harris has significantly more name recognition than the two governors. But if Harris were as unpopular as many assume, her name recognition would be a minus, not a plus.
That it may not be a minus is suggested by perhaps the most telling result in CNN’s poll. Harris trails Trump by exactly the same margin as “generic ballot.”
Therefore, Harris and her backers can say, with evidence, that (1) she’s the Democrats’ best hope for defeating Trump (outside, perhaps, of Michelle Obama) and (2) she fits the bill of “generic Democrat candidate.”
That’s important because influential Democrats still believe Trump can be beaten by a generic candidate. They regard the former president as saddled with so much baggage that if they can just nominate a candidate who doesn’t turn people off to an inordinate degree, they can prevail.
I don’t know if this view is correct, but it’s plausible. After all, what was Joe Biden in 2020 except a generic Democrat who didn’t turn people off to an inordinate degree.
I’m not saying that Harris actually is such a candidate. I suspect that many of the voters she would need find her, or would find her, off-putting. I agree with this assessment by a liberal pundit:
[Harris’] presidential campaign four years ago was a spectacular flop. Republicans will unleash a barrage of negative advertising if she claims the nomination, likely centered on her “border czar” role early in the administration.
And let’s not forget the annoying Harris cackle.
Therefore:
[Harris’] downsides are very, very real and her floor is probably lower than Biden’s. But her ceiling is. . .probably higher.
A higher ceiling is what the Democrats desperately need in a race where Biden, Harris, Whitmer, and Newsom all trail Trump, as of now.
The realistic prospect of Harris or the awful Gov. Whitmer as the candidate might suggest that Trump should take as his VP Rep. Elise Stefanik. Trump is weak with women to start with, and Stefanik (while not the best (that would be Cotton or Youngkin)) is really smart, solidly conservative, and quick on her feet. I met her at a lunch about a month ago and was quite impressed.
I loathe identity politics, and I understand the VP selections normally barely move the needle, but it could well turn out to be the case that we need every last vote.
Thank you for this. My immediate reaction after the debate was that the upshot might well be big trouble for Trump. No matter how the Democrats look now, if they act quickly they -- and their useful dunces in the media -- will have several months to message the electorate away from the staggering dishonesty in their portrayal of the Biden presidency over the last few years, and then it will be:
Somebody, probably Harris, they will have had all that time to build up into a mature, sensible statesperson,
versus
Donald J. Trump, who will still be Donald J. Trump, and has shown signs of becoming even Trumpier since the Democrats contrived to hand him the nomination. Whatever you say about him the man will not rest on a lead.
One disagrees with Bill Otis at one's peril, but hard no on Elise Stefanik. We're seeing the death of DEI all over the place, and unless she's a whole lot more impressive than she appears -- yes, appearance means a lot in the Kardashian Century -- he'd be far better off with Rubio. Heck, even The Kackler is said to be pondering white guys as a potential running mate.