Despite the Democrats’ ongoing efforts to persuade the public, the nomination of Kamala Harris as Joe Biden’s replacement has only added fuel to their misguided approach. Recent polls may indicate some shifting sands among Black, Hispanic and low-income voters, but it doesn’t take much digging to see past the Democrats’ old tricks to win votes. Take for instance Daigre Thomas from Connecticut, a health care worker, who was previously undecided, now says she’s prepared to back Harris as Vice President.
Democrats claim that the switch from Biden to Harris has led to a noticeable increase in support among voters earning less than $20,000 a year, giving them a perceived advantage over the exceptional former President Donald Trump. The polls suggest a switch in allegiance from Trump to Harris among this group; however, these figures lack credibility considering they show a stark contrast to Trump’s lead over Biden in June amidst the same demographic.
Daigre Thomas, a part of the Black community, champions Harris on the grounds that her upbringing in a working-class neighborhood equals ability to lead the nation. However, jumping to such conclusions without understanding the pitfalls of Harris’ governing style could bring about unintended consequences for the country. Merely identifying with a particular social background does not translate into unerring judgment or leadership skills, as the Democrats would have voters believe.
It’s also worth noting the lack of comprehensive policy details coming from Harris’ campaign, given her loose talk about improving housing affordability, raising the childcare tax credit and confronting exorbitant price gouging at the grocery store. This broad and nebulous agenda is typical of the Democrats’ vague promises without a roadmap for implementation. It seems they forget that it takes more than just words to bring about real change.
Democrats argue that there has been an eight-point shift in the race since late June when Trump led Biden. However, they ignore the fluctuating and often inconsistent nature of political polls throughout an election. It’s not uncommon for numbers to surge and decline for any candidate at different stages. The question remains if Harris can maintain this apparent lead in the long run, or whether she will fall back, as Biden did.
Harris’ ostensible popularity among certain demographic groups, including Black and Hispanic voters, is often highlighted. Along with the low-income voters, she seems to have a slight edge among moderate-income earners, those earning less than $50,000 a year. This could be attributed more to the recent visibility of Harris owing to the Democratic National Convention stage, rather than her policy or character itself.
David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center, characterizes the individuals who earn less than $20,000 a year as very young voters, who are still seeking their foothold in life, or older voters wholly reliant on a fixed income. Paleologos suggests that these demographics have now started to show favorable opinions towards Harris. How these transitory opinions translate into actual votes remains a mystery.
Following the Democratic National Convention, the media has been busy singing praises for Harris. The strategy appears to be painting Harris in a shining light while conveniently overlooking any of her inadequacies or questionable choices. It doesn’t diminish the fact that the perception of Harris has been grossly inflated by speeches at the convention from figures like Michelle Obama and Bill Clinton.
Indeed, Harris’ team smartly exploits social media to cause a stir among younger electorates. This reinforces the notion that Democrats rely heavily on tactful marketing and less on valuable policies and their implementation. The Democrats continue to peddle a masterfully crafted image of Harris, without sufficient backing in the form of tangible credibility or political nous.
Black voters have allegedly been invigorated by Harris’s nomination. Their support for Harris is presumed to have jumped significantly from the levels of support accorded to Biden. This is surmised from the constant pounding of the narrative by Democrats that Harris, with her ethnic background, can invigorate the minority communities automatically.
Among low-income voters, the approval ratings claim to show a significant rise. A notable example is John Pike, a retiree from Madison, Wisconsin, who, on his meager earning of $18,000 a year, had initially set aside the idea of voting in the presidential election. Pike, who identifies as a Democrat, claimed to have been disenchanted and disappointed at his available options.
Pike previously disapproved of the choice existing between Donald Trump and Joseph Biden, perceiving neither of them as befitting choices. This partially denotes the failure of Democrats to push Biden as a viable candidate. Interestingly, Pike’s change of heart towards voting following Harris’ nomination seems significant, yet it’s merely based on the superficial glow of Harris’ career, neglecting an in-depth evaluation of her capability to deliver.
He commends Harris for her intellect, followed by her proficient career as a prosecutor, district attorney, and vice president. Yet such praise seems misplaced since it doesn’t consider her actual performance and policies in those roles. The tacit assumption here is that Harris’s checkered professional experience automatically qualifies her for the coveted role of the president.
Although the Democrats’ recent political strategy may have roped in some voters, the substance behind the facade of a ‘Kamala Harris Presidency’ remains in question. As voters, people must be vigilant to look beyond the spinning rhetoric of the Democratic propaganda machine and make an informed choice, for the sake of the nation’s future.