In the landscape of contemporary politics, Joe Biden’s team embarked on a mission early last year encapsulating grand ideas of achieving a second term for a president whose popularity was unfavorably tilting with a dire economic mess. Biden’s attempts at offering sporadic external advice, reminding Democrats of his slim chances at victory, soon turned bleak. The baton was passed to Kamala Harris, and a new combat began for the Democrats that appeared far more challenging.
As the Election Day started creeping near, the focus sharpened on Harris’s avenues to secure a win. With hopes pinned on the blue territories of Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and a precious spot in Nebraska, the potential path for Harris becoming the first woman president was laid gaping yet onerous. The territories are no open grounds for Democrats, with challenging ties in Georgia and an optimist governor in North Carolina showing no signs of losing grip.
Like a complex puzzle, Democrats scramble to put together all the pieces: Arizona, Nevada paired with losing one of the blue stronghold states. They still believe there are several routes to reach the ultimate goal. But the challenges include gleaning support from those still uncertain about Harris and the benefits she promises and maintaining the voter enthusiasm high that Harris surprisingly holds over Trump.
In what seems like a game of sentiments, Harris enjoys an upper hand in voter enthusiasm, but the gender divide in this election phase stands as an underreported element. With the spotlight on abortion laws post-Dobbs, Harris made a bold claim about the implications of this ruling. She projected an impending chaos that’s about to unfurl across states with individual repercussions, potentially culminating in a massive outcry against elected officials.
States like Arizona and Nevada, where the abortion issue has become a hot topic due to referenda, provide a unique opportunity for Harris to outperform with certain voter groups, notably women. Nonetheless, her handling of such sensitive matters wasn’t without its problems, leading to divisive opinions about her strategies.
The situation intensified as survey results rolled in, with a 16-point favorability gap revealed between Harris and Trump among women voters. The election predicament seemed to hinge on how many votes Harris could actually secure from women. White women comprise approximately 36% of the overall voters, and attracting these voters was critical for Harris evidently.
If Harris could sway the white women electorate and keep the voting numbers close, it would significantly increase her chances of winning. She showcased an unprecedented field operation, positioning herself to focus on the essential voter groups: African Americans, Latinos, and the younger generation. The question that hangs in the balance is whether or not these measures will be enough.
A major segment of surveyed women expressed concerns over the economy and inflation, shaping the narrative of Harris’ campaign. If Harris could secure the votes of white, working-class women, echoing the voting patterns of more educated women, her victory seemed feasible.
Voters perceived Harris as a symbol of transformation, an avatar that exudes change through her unique personal narrative, policy stance, and identity. Harris’ focus on positive campaigning and a well-articulated plan for the country’s future hinted at her independent run for the presidency.
Yet, the high visibility of her campaign seemed to have the opposite effect. As people continued to get acquainted with her, they found fewer reasons to like her, threatening her lead on economic issues. Accordingly, countering the unusual sense of nostalgia amongst voters was now more important than ever.
On the contrary, Trump took a safer road, keeping under the radar and remaining securely tucked in his right-wing media bubble. His strategy appeared to be working as it allowed him to evade public scrutiny while reserving the goodwill he had with his audience.
The January 6 incident has been a significant tool in Harris’ campaign, but again the public response swayed dangerously in both directions. While on one hand it served as a stark reminder for the Democrats, Trump’s consistent emphasis on it began to irk moderate voters who yearned for quieter political times.
Trump’s intimidating comments about planning to send supporters to ‘monitor polls’ raised alarm and threatened to shake the faith of ordinary citizens in the process of democracy itself. Doubts began sprouting in people’s minds questioning the worthiness of engaging in the voting process amidst such spiraling chaos.
Reflecting back on the 2000 election, the Democrats needed to maintain a strong memory and anticipate the unforeseeable. While some Democrats viewed the mounting issues with well-intentioned naivety, the stakes were far more serious than often makes the news.