The election fundamentals have changed dramatically in the two months since Vice President Kamala Harris’s nomination. Her all-too-giddy campaign strategy, combined with effective negative attacks against her, has damaged her candidacy.
Harris’s errors are multiple. Her “joy” campaign comes across to voters as oblivious to the serious problems facing the country. By disavowing legislation she sponsored or supported in her short Senate tenure and disowning her policy positions from the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries, Harris has confused voters about where she really stands. Her strategy of avoiding all but a handful of cherry-picked media interviews and then flubbing two of them creates the perception that she is either clueless or has a hidden agenda. Either way, Harris has created a trust deficit. One that Trump’s team could exploit.
Voters’ confusion about where Harris stands, however, doesn’t mean they don’t have a clear impression of her. They have one, and it’s negative.
Recent polls of battleground states Georgia and North Carolina have revealed this. In Georgia, 50% of voters view Harris unfavorably, while her favorability rating is 43%. In North Carolina, 49% of voters are unfavorable, and 47% are favorable. This 1:1 favorable/unfavorable ratio limits her appeal to voters on the fence. In other words, she’s topped out in the polls.
The Trump team’s attacks have driven Harris’s negatives about as high as possible, given the polarized state of our politics. Trump now needs to shift from negative attacks and focus more on the positive direction he’ll take the country in when he wins. His ads need to be rotated to reflect the new landscape of the campaign, with a ratio of three positive ads for every attack ad. These ads and stump speeches should reflect Trump’s chief asset: A track record of presidential leadership that delivers results. The umbrella theme for these Trump ads should be “leadership that can be trusted.” They should compare and contrast his results with hers, taking advantage of the trust deficit Harris has created.
First, a primer on political polarization: it’s a 21st century phenomenon that is here to stay. Centrists in both parties yearning for the post-WWII era of consensus are doomed to disappointment. Gallup has been measuring polarization since the Eisenhower presidency. It was moderate during the last half of the 20th century but accelerated after former President George W. Bush’s 2000 election victory was contested for months by Democratic challenger Al Gore. When Gore finally conceded in mid-December, the era of polarization had begun.
Polarization rose sharply under former President Barack Obama. Gallup called Obama the “most polarizing president” to date. Bipartisan cooperation in Congress atrophied under his presidency. His rhetoric didn’t help. In 2010, Obama called on Democrats to “punish our enemies.” Before Obama, post-war presidents reserved the term “enemy” for hostile foreign countries, such as the Soviet Union during the Cold War, not political opponents. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton compounded polarization when she called Trump supporters a “basket of deplorables” in 2016.
Trump then outdid Obama by a few points on the Gallup measure of polarization. Midway through his fourth year in office, President Joe Biden’s polarization rating fell slightly below Trump’s but remained higher than Obama’s. This decadeslong polarization explains why Harris’s campaign promises to unify our sharply divided electorate come across as empty.
The economy and immigration are the top voter concerns in this election. Consumer confidence declined last month. Inflation is still a red-hot matter. To the Federal Reserve and economists, it may seem tame, but not for ordinary Americans whose family spending on groceries soared by $2,500 after a year under the Biden-Harris administration. A television, radio, and social media advertising blitz would drive home how well the economy fared under Trump’s leadership.
Trump’s blitz should include more Spanish-language ads. Down the street from my house, a large Trump banner flies, but that’s not noteworthy in Douglas County, Nevada, where I reside. Trump’s following here is large. The banner waves proudly at the home of a Mexican-American small business owner, and he’s not alone. The Trump campaign should target Hispanic voters in swing states and battlegrounds with a get-out-the-vote message premised on Trump’s strong leadership, or liderazgo. It will be money well spent.
Crime is the third-ranking voter concern. Negative attacks on Harris should emphasize that violent crime has risen steadily during her vice presidency. Last week, the FBI admitted that instead of falling under the Biden-Harris administration, the overall crime and murder rates have risen. Dr. John Lott of the Crime Prevention Center has documented the data. The media can’t be trusted to report this honestly, so the Trump team will have to do it through advertising.
Speaking of the media, Trump should stop giving news conferences and limit his interviews to friendly reporters. From now until Election Day, the Trump team needs to go over the heads of the legacy media and straight to the voters. The Fox News town hall with female voters is the kind of forum Trump should seek, where voters can hear his answers unfiltered by a hostile press corps.
However, Trump still needs to keep up his guard even in friendly media interviews and forums, including social media. Comments made in a friendly forum will be taken out of context and used by legacy media to his detriment. Television news, in particular, looks for sound bites. Trump needs to think of his statements as an amuse-bouche, not a smorgasbord. Give the legacy media a smorgasbord of quotes it can choose from, and it will pick the most damaging. Serve up tasty, well-thought-through morsels, and he’ll beat the press at its own game.
Americans know this election is consequential, from pocketbook matters to the open border and a world growing increasingly dangerous under the Biden-Harris administration. Trump doesn’t need to remind voters how bad things are. He needs to offer them leadership they can count on in uncertain times. His ads, speeches, and appearances should focus on positive change.
The above advice needs to be tempered with the caution to stay nimble-footed and ready to turn on a dime. Surprises galore can happen during the closing weeks of a presidential campaign, as I learned forty years ago from former President Ronald Reagan’s 1984 reelection campaign.
The month of October was a roller-coaster for Reagan. His first debate with Walter Mondale on Oct. 7 was a disaster. Reagan, then 73 years old, was America’s oldest president ever at the time. His fumbling performance raised questions about whether he could handle a second term. Reagan was dispirited, bordering on depression, after losing that debate.
Next on the calendar was the Oct. 11 debate between former President George H.W. Bush, then vice president, and Geraldine Ferraro, the first woman ever nominated for vice president on a major party ticket. Our pollsters thought Ferraro could mobilize a million more women to vote in 1984 than in 1980. She was a significant threat to Reagan’s reelection. A majority of women thought Ferraro won the debate with George H.W. Bush. Reagan was scheduled to make a whistle-stop train tour through Ohio just after that debate. My colleague, Steve Hart, and I were responsible for handling the press on the trip. I witnessed Reagan’s fighting spirits revive bit by bit as he spoke from the back of a vintage train car at stops in small towns along the tracks. He drew energy from the crowds, some 250,000 strong.
The pendulum swung in our direction again a few days later. Months of research on Ferraro that Art Teele and I had overseen paid off when the New York Post ran a lengthy article headlined “The Ferraros of Newburgh.” Based on tips from a confidential informant we interviewed at the Hotel Thayer at West Point, the article detailed the links between organized crime and Ferraro’s father. Throughout the campaign, Ferraro depicted her parents as owners of a small nickel-and-dime store in Newburgh, New York. In fact, her father ran a nightclub called the Roxy that featured burlesque dancers. His business partner in the enterprise was a local gangster. The article culminated with the revelation that both of Ferraro’s parents had been arrested in 1944 for participating in an illegal gambling operation.
The article went international, the equivalent of viral in today’s social media world. An avalanche of follow-on stories reported links between the Mafia and Ferraro’s campaigns that Teele and I had uncovered. Female voters abandoned her in droves.
Three days later, Reagan won his second debate with Mondale. When Reagan quipped that he wouldn’t “exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience,” his humor put the age concern to rest.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM RESTORING AMERICA
Trump should close out his last presidential campaign on a high note. Voters need to believe he’ll get America moving again under strong leadership and work with Congress to solve our problems.
He should travel to swing states, leaving some time open for targets of opportunity so he can build momentum where polls show a late shift in his favor, before capping it off with a final week of energetic campaign rallies in GOP strongholds.
John B. Roberts II is a former political strategist and executive producer of The McLaughlin Group. His latest book is Reagan’s Cowboys: Inside the 1984 Reelection Campaign’s Secret Operation Against Geraldine Ferraro. His website is www.jbrobertsauthor.com.
