Kamala Harris, in her role as Vice President, has decided to engage in a questionable campaign tactic. She has executed an advertising ploy aimed singularly at President Donald J. Trump, previous holder of her current office. The advertisement takes a jibe at a remark made by former President Barack Obama last month during the Democratic National Convention, centered in Chicago, where he poked fun at Mr. Trump’s apparent ‘fascination with crowd sizes.’
The ad makes a mockery of Mr. Obama’s hand gesture where he brought his palms apart and then brought them close together while glancing down at them, interpreting a sense of amusement. Though Obama’s gesture might have been somewhat covert, the ad painfully amplified it by honing in heavily on his hands and his downward gaze.
The Harris-led ad also decided to hightlight empty sitting spaces as a sign of Mr. Trump’s lackluster crowd pull, to the sound of crickets. It also brought a renewed focus onto Senator Marco Rubio’s 2016 Republican primary dig at Mr. Trump’s small hands. A jab that drew a rather defensive response from Mr. Trump in a 2016 debate.
Harris’s campaign has clearly shown that their ad was crafted more for an audience of one than for the voters. Their strategy involves airing the said ad on Fox News in Mr. Trump’s residence media market in West Palm Beach, Fla., and further in Philadelphia. The intention seems clearly to annoy him as they are fully aware he will be in Philadelphia on Tuesday for the debate.
The VP’s campaign went on to share the ad on their Instagram account. Displaying a roaring crowd in support of Harris, it cut from scenes of supposedly sparsely attended Trump rallies. The caption, steeped in arrogance, claimed they had no particular reason for running the ad on Fox News, just a mischievous angel emoji to go along with their veiled provocation.
Further amplifying their sarcastic tone, the campaign also informed of their purchase of billboards for ads centred on crowd sizes in Philadelphia. One of the ads took an unserious jibe at Mr. Trump, making a rather juvenile play on words with the text. They made a reference to ‘WAWA,’ a popular regional chain of convenience stores and used it to mock the attendance at Mr. Trump’s gatherings.
As of now, the Trump campaign has chosen to maintain dignity and not comment on the immature tactics practiced by the opposition. This demonstrates their focus remains on their goals to serve the American people rather than getting caught up in the irrelevant drama stirred by the opposition.
Reflecting on these tactics, it is clear that the Vice President’s campaign is employing a strategy of distraction, taking attention away from real issues. The campaign’s apparent obsession with small, arbitrary details further demonstrates a lack of focus on serious consequences. It’s a damning indication of where priorities lie within the administration.
It is yet to be seen whether these tactics will resonate with voters, who may find such juvenile and negative tactics unpalatable. Voters are more likely interested in how the administration intends to address pressing societal’s challenges rather than who has the larger hand size.
From an analytical standpoint, this could potentially alienate voters who are looking for maturity, focus, and tact. Campaigns should be aiming to build trust and convey their approach towards societal challenges, rather than indulging in personal attacks and ridicule.
While some might see these ads as harmless trolling, they do shine a rather concerning light on the state of American politics. Lowering the level of discourse to personal attacks and focuses on petty issues, instead of addressing substantial concerns, can only lead to the undermining of trust in the political system.
Furthermore, dedicating campaign resources to personal attacks rather than focusing on voter issues might not be the best use of funds. This kind of calculated provocation may actually backfire and cost the Harris administration points in the public eye.
All said, the actions by the Harris-led campaign raise questions about their priorities and tactics. If this is an indication of future strategies and the level of discourse in the political scene, it would be worth questioning the direction American politics is heading.