When Kamala Harris Stops Pulling Punches — 10/21/24

As is often the case, Donald Trump is attracting much more attention in the closing days of the campaign, as his speeches become angrier, more explicit, and more anatomically specific. But it is the change in tone in Kamala Harris’ public statements that may have a greater impact on the election’s outcome.

Way back in late July—just three months having passed on the calendar, but what now seems like eons ago—Harris began talking about "the politics of joy." Those days are long gone.

When Harris first replaced Joe Biden as the Democratic standard-bearer, party regulars were so excited—and so relieved— that their ebullience became an integral part of their candidate’s campaign message. Harris was able to motivate key Democratic constituencies that had been uninspired by Biden, and the enthusiasm among young people, non-white voters and single women quickly propelled her into a virtual tie with Trump in most national and key swing state polls. 

When Tim Walz was tapped to join the ticket, his messaging strategy of diminishing Trump was seen as a key factor in Harris’ decision. Unlike Biden, who regularly and darkly warned of the Trump threat to American democracy, Walz instead dismissed the former president and his allies simply as "weird." The idea was that mocking Trump rather than elevating him could serve as a more upbeat way of contrasting Harris and Walz with their opponents, and would reinforce the more positive and cheerful demeanor that they hoped to convey to their backers.

But summer inevitably turns to fall, and Harris has been unable to maintain that early momentum. Her team has learned that rousing their party’s existing support base is a much easier task than persuading skeptical swing voters. The race against Trump has been frozen in a dead heat for weeks. And in order to win over new voters, framing the contest as “joy” vs “weird” is no longer sufficient. 

Not surprisingly, the Harris campaign has begun to move much more aggressively, and the candidate has begun to speak much more belligerently as election day draws closer. Harris often referred to Trump as "unserious." Now, her newest ads close with a photo of an open-mouthed Trump adjacent to the words “Unhinged. Unstable. Unchecked.” Her language on the stump is increasingly antagonistic, frequently castigating what she argues are Trump’s dictatorial tendencies, his fearmongering and his cruelty. Last week, she and her supporters began using the word “fascist” to describe him.

To be fair, even Harris’ heightened verbiage pales in comparison to the nasty, personal and often profane rhetoric that Trump employs every day—against Harris, other Democrats and any other potential critic or foe. Trump regularly hurls insults against his opponents so vile that they could not have appeared in mainstream news coverage in previous eras. But the point here is not to compare Harris with Trump, but rather her current tone with that with which she began her campaign. Joy is long gone, replaced by fear.

Biden’s warnings about threats to democracy are once again a central part of the Democratic message, voiced by Harris, Walz and their surrogates. Trump is no more or less weird today than he was in August, but that reference has all but disappeared and been replaced by depictions intended to frighten rather than amuse. The Alec Baldwin cartoonish imitation on Saturday Night Live is a distant pop culture memory.  Democrats now instead portray Trump as the political version of Thanos, the interstellar supervillain thwarted by the Avengers in their last movie.

Dread and terror might not be as uplifting as hope and change, but the Harris campaign is betting that they are the most appropriate responses to Trump in the current apocalyptic landscape. Her critics see this as panic, an overreaction to the overly cautious campaign that she has run since entering the race. Many of her supporters believe that this escalation is long overdue, and that running on her personal biography and professional accomplishments were insufficient weapons against Trump’s borderline nuclear approach to politics. 

They may both be right. Harris’ new strategy may be a result of desperation or self-defense. It may be the last step in a communications timeline developed when she first entered the race, or the inevitable and unavoidable conclusion to any campaign that involves Trump. But at this point, the only potential for joy among her backers will come after the election if she is victorious. No matter how she gets there.