The Democratic National Convention kicked off under the gaze of an apparently expectant Kamala Harris and her crew. It was evident they had identified four major goals to pursue. Maintaining the momentum Harris had gathered since she was prematurely labeled the nominee was the first. The second was a smooth transition from the previously disappointing Biden’s leadership that had left Harris in a dubious position of ‘safe change’ from the soporific Biden-Trump feud. The third involved emphasizing the ‘risky change’ that Trump and J.D. Vance symbolize. And finally, the fourth was to deflect any distractions, be it from protesters or missteps in the convention planning.
Within the initial days of the convention, it seemed all these targets were addressed, albeit with varying proficiency. Most observers agreed, however, that the convention retained the ‘vibe’ that has somewhat defined Harris’s journey so far. This was evident in the jubilant roll call for states and the unexpected entry of Oprah. The appealing staging of Tim Walz’s acceptance speech kept viewers intrigued. The transition from Biden was maneuvered well on the inaugural night, with the Obamas gracefully making way for the next generation.
Efforts were made to repackage Harris, in stark contrast to the ‘extreme left’ label that the Trump campaign prefers to assign her. The convention did manage to come up with clever new ways to criticise Trump and Vance, drawing on the contrast between a practical Democrat and an irritable extremist Republican. The discourse on reproductive rights was prominent among these discussions with Democrats appearing confident in their stance.
Mostly, the convention tactically managed potential protests without appearing oppressive. However, a typical challenge emerged in sticking to the convention schedule. While the demand for punctuality may have seemed overstated, a disciplined execution would be a positive sign for a party hoping to restore its image towards the end of the convention.
In many ways, the only thing left for Harris was to close on the pre-work done by the convention. Among the primary objectives, the most imperative now is to clarify the magnitude of change and continuity she’d introduce as a president. This does not only concern her personal past and experiences in California and Washington. It also necessitates providing a more detailed explanation about her political agenda.
She won’t only cater to inspire Democrats but also to assure swing voters that she isn’t just another Biden or an unlikely ‘radical leftist’. While other speakers have tried to underline her portrayal as a stern prosecutor, a devoted patriot, and a grounded, empathetic leader, she needs to clarify how she will tackle the policy challenges where Biden faltered, especially in the areas of economy and immigration.
Handling this does not imply putting forward a comprehensive agenda as Bill Clinton was known for in his addresses. However, it certainly demands more than just vibrant catch-phrases or meme-based messages. She might need to share a few inconvenient truths that party activists might not necessarily appreciate. Such a move could improve her standing with voters who are disillusioned with both leading parties in the country.
Sure, it would be refreshing if Harris could muster some memorable expressions, unleash clever quips at Trump, and appear sophisticated and composed. However, it’s the basics that will make the real difference. This is her opportunity to spark renewed interest in an electorate that might be willing to give her a second chance but remains potentially skeptical.
She needs to leave an indelible impression on the audience which would invigorate the next 75 days of campaigning into a spirited dash towards the finish line, rather than a tiresome haul.
Without overemphasizing the clear mismanagement of the Biden era, enabling a successful transition and separating her brand from Biden’s perceived failures will be critical. Harris must strategically position herself as the ‘safe change’, demarcating a line clearly between a refreshing Democratic approach and the old methodologies contested over by Biden and Trump.
The challenge lies in the balance to portray herself neither as a ‘Biden 2.0’ nor as a ‘radical leftist’. It rests heavily on her ability to establish herself as a practical and relatable Democrat, offering a stark contrast to what she perceives as a cranky GOP led by Trump, who seems to thrive on extreme views.
While the Convention has created a favorable momentum for Harris, there is a considerable amount of work left for her to do. She needs to ensure her message and approach resonates with swing voters and disillusioned Americans, looking for a credible and reliable alternative to the established norms.
In essence, it is crucial that Harris characterizes her potential presidency not as a continuation of the same, but as a hopeful change. It is this narrative of change that could capture the attention of voters, shifting the political landscape to her advantage.