In a recent radio town hall in Detroit, which focused on Black voters, Kamala Harris, the Vice President, received a query regarding the timing of her ‘opportunity agenda for Black men.’ Chivez ‘Icewear Vezzo’ Smith, a local rapper, posed the question, ‘What would you tell those who view this proposal’s timing as politically motivated?’, highlighting that some Black men feel their interests are only catered to during election periods. Instead of answering directly, Harris launched into a long-winded explanation of how long-standing her commitment to such policies is. Public opinion suggests that Harris’s insights do not find strong resonance among voters of color, particularly men.
The sway that the Democratic Party traditionally held over such voters appears to be dwindling. Even a marginal drift of these voters away from the party could become a game changer in an election which is extremely competitive. It’s important to note the lack of candidness and genuine approach in Kamala’s words and actions in the face of this obvious challenge.
Both Harris and the former president Donald Trump were seen actively engaging various demographics in a bid to address their perceived electoral shortcomings. Notable amongst Harris’s attempts was a series of interviews and media appearances designed for predominantly Black audiences. However, the difference came in the type of gatherings where Trump elected to interact with a solely female audience in a town hall in Georgia, contrasting Harris’s approach of excluding a wide array of voters.
Despite these efforts, their public addresses did not highlight any new or ground-breaking proposals. Overemphasis on old packaged as new was evident, especially when Harris reiterated her ‘opportunity economy’ proposals. It reflects poorly on her part that she couldn’t bring anything fresh and just highlighted pre-existing measures.
Harris’s strategy put forth her long-discussed points such as an expanded child tax credit, a greater tax deduction for small business initiators, down payment assistance for first-time homebuyers, and the decriminalization of marijuana to benefit Black Americans in the growing cannabis industry. Meanwhile, Trump proposed investment in fossil fuels as a solution to reducing energy prices. In his pursuits, he maintained stern views on immigration and responded ambiguously to Roe v Wade and in vitro fertilization.
As can be observed, these last-minute efforts to win over particular voter groups show the fiercely contested nature of the race. Harris may continue to receive significant support from the minority voters, despite underplaying their influence in public discourse, but it won’t take much of a dent in this support or a minor drop in voter turnout from the last election to tip the balance in favor of her adversary.
The widening gap in Trump’s support from women showcases another glaring vulnerability. Of note, the assumption that women won’t choose a hardline stance over vague claims such as those put forth by Harris seems not to hold water. Harris should stop kidding herself that she can exert the same influence over women as Trump, without the backing of actual achievable policies.
Charlamagne tha God voiced his concerns during the town hall, questioning the select bias towards Black male voters while ignoring other demographics. He brought up a statement made by former president Barack Obama the previous week where he implied that Black men who were reluctant to support Harris may be showcasing sexist tendencies, which seems extraordinarily dismissive.
Harris’s reply to this was to note that everyone was putting in an effort to remind people of what’s at stake. But her defense raises the question, is it not their responsibility as leadership contenders to make this clear to all? Should it really need a massive group effort to make their agendas digestible to the common man?
In essence, the failure of Harris to engage constructively with her potential voters mirrors her perceived indifference and detachment from their real needs. Her inability to take criticism on board and instead resorting to deflective tactics further underscores the lack of substance in her political rhetoric.
Moreover, highlighting the same old policies and promising their implementation does not really reflect well on the leadership capacity of Harris, especially for those living on the edge who need immediate and long-lasting solutions, not outpost-election sympathy.
In contrast, Trump’s practical approach of investing in fossil fuels to bring down energy costs without specifying how that would benefit the American citizens might seem vague but resonates well with a substantial part of the electorate that doesn’t tolerate anodyne messages. What they are looking for is leadership, which, in Trump’s case, is certainly a notable factor.
It must also be underlined that how Harris gains any level of support with an approach that prefers subtlety and evasion over direct, decisive action is bewildering. The lack of a clear or refreshing outlook on how she plans to tackle key policy areas puts her credibility as a leader in real jeopardy.
Overall, what the Democratic Party needs to rethink is how they can engage voters genuinely rather than sideline groups until they need their votes. What they gain by overlooking certain sections for short-term electoral gains could prove to be a strategic debacle in the long run.
To conclude, the inability of the Democratic Party to appropriately cater to every demographic and ensure their voices are heard paints a dim picture for their electoral prospects. The episodes like the one on the town hall are indicative of the larger issue at hand, that is, a leadership devoid of substance or empathy for a diverse electorate.