In the wake of the impending presidential battle conclusion, an array of intellectuals and political tacticians were asked to speculate about the possible fallout, regardless of whether Kamala Harris or Donald Trump emerges victorious. One of such scholars is William Galston, a seasoned fellow at the Brookings Institution. He shared that Harris’s unexpectedly moderate presidential run has taken many by surprise, even more so when the radical elements in her party remained silent. He projected that the Republicans might clinch the Senate leadership if Harris gets the upper hand, a scenario that would necessitate her adjusting stance and compromising with the Senate Republican leadership, consequently toning down the influence of the left wing in her government.
Jim Kessler, Third Way’s executive vice president for policy, put forth his perspective. He reasoned that a win for Harris would be on account of her ability to eliminate the radical theories that brought a downfall to Democratic primary contenders in the cycle of 2020, and persuasively appealed to popular voters, projecting herself as a Democratic moderate. However, centrist leaning might be viewed as the problem if she faces defeat against Trump, with many of her party colleagues attributing the loss to her shift towards the center.
Ruy Teixeira, an affiliate at the American Enterprise Institute, boldly declared the supposedly stagnant progression of the radical movement within the Democratic Party. His opinion of the cultural left expressed an undeniable distaste. Conversely, Robert L. Borosage, president of the left-leaning Institute for America’s Future, disputed the assertion. He suggested that a potential loss for Harris would be credited to a systematic failure of the party to resonate with hard-working citizens and its representatives’ inability to connect with them.
Our Revolution’s leader, Joseph Geevarghese, also countered the mainstream commentary, maintaining that the Harris campaign’s core misstep was opting for moderate politics to attract disillusioned Republicans. His prediction states that progressives would be held accountable if Harris tasted defeat. The verdict, he feels, would steer clear of introspecting the administration’s shortcomings in addressing the nation’s economic anxiety.
Yascha Mounk, a faculty member at Johns Hopkins, lent a different angle to the post-election discourse. He expressed that a potential defeat for Kamala Harris would prompt Democrats to reevaluate their unpopular standpoint on critical cultural issues. On a related note, Julie Wronski, a political analyst from the University of Mississippi, presented an argument about the critical role of attitudes towards race and gender in the election aftermath.
The dynamics changed with Harris stepping in for Biden in the Democratic lineup, making considerations around race and gender more prominent. Observably, Trump persistently appealed to white masculinity throughout his campaign. Still, John Halpin, editor of The Liberal Patriot, introduced an alternate narrative of a potential Harris win. He believed it would hinge on her adoption of an anti-Trump sentiment, endorsing freedom and advocating for reproductive rights.
Meanwhile, if Harris fails to secure victory, both Biden and Harris would face the blame, he argued. Forecasting the resolution of these disputes is challenging. In the short term, such disagreements typically tend to smolder, only to flare up vehemently during subsequent presidential primaries.
Over the course of time, politicians who astutely seize their opportunity usually emerge as key influencers in shaping America’s political discourse. The undercurrents indicate that the aftershocks of this electoral fight will leave an indelible impact on the political landscape, eventually charting the course of future electoral battles.