A theory about the presidential race

Both camps are primarily conducting base turnout campaigns. Swing voters may end up deciding based more on personality than policy.

I have a theory about how the presidential race is shaping up. There are some hints of it in some of the polling data. But it’s mostly what an old observer of politics senses in the air.

The replacement of Joe Biden with Kamala Harris has allowed the Democrats to pretty much eliminate the enthusiasm gap. In fact, Democrats may now have a slight edge particularly in states, such as Arizona, in which abortion is on the ballot.

Both campaigns seem committed to running primarily a base election strategy, focusing first on turning out their marginal supporters. Nevertheless, the outcome will still probably be determined by the swing voters in the swing states.

Despite that, neither side is really appealing to swing voters on policy. 

Harris has abandoned some of the most radical positions she took during her previous presidential bid, such as a complete government takeover of healthcare and banning fracking. But, to the extent she is advancing policy proposals, which isn’t much, they still involve a substantial expansion of government’s reach and cost, even though the cost of the massive expansion during the Biden years hasn’t even begun to be digested. 

Trump is Trump. Except on abortion, he’s still running on a pure MAGA agenda and still denouncing Republicans who are not fully on board or sufficiently submissive. Trump’s not attempting to attract, in style or substance, even the swing voters who lean Republican.

I sense that swing voters are drifting Harris’s way, and principally based on personality, not policy. 

Trump is a nasty guy. Politicians are, by nature, egocentric and demagogic. But Trump is in a category by himself. I think Barack Obama was on to something when he described Trump’s act as stale. Outside of MAGAland, he just seems to be an unpleasant cad. 

Harris, on the other hand, seems to have a pleasant enough political persona, particularly in contrast to Trump. It seemed that one of the objectives of the Democratic Convention was to highlight and amplify this contrast. And generally, I thought it succeeded. 

Some commentators think that Trump has two killer issues that can overcome whatever deficit he might have in likeability, if he would stick to them and put the Don Rickles routine aside: immigration and the economy.

I think a lot of issues are already almost fully baked in this election cycle. Trump probably already has virtually all the votes the immigration issue can produce for him. He is the immigration restrictionist candidate. 

However, he booted the chance, among swing voters, to be the problem-solving immigration candidate when he browbeat congressional Republicans to shelve the asylum reform proposal negotiated in considerable part by Arizona’s Kyrsten Sinema, to preserve the issue for his presidential campaign. Harris’s support for the measure, and the early success partial implementation of it by executive order is having, enables her to minimize losses on the issue, outside of the immigration restrictionists. For Trump, immigration is now largely a turnout issue, not an issue on which he can persuade swing voters.

The economy has greater potential. Harris is fully complicit in the big-spending, big deficit Biden programs that precipitated, or at least significantly contributed to, the inflation outbreak that remains a highly salient political issue, including among swing voters. 

However, Trump is also complicit, although to a lesser degree. Outsized Covid relief spending began on his watch, and at his urging. 

If Trump were a conventional Republican, running on lower taxes and freer markets, he might get swing voters to overlook his nastiness in favor of a toggle to the right on the economy. And in his first term, lower taxes and freer markets were part of his portfolio.

However, that’s not all to his portfolio. He’s the self-described Tariff Man, and promises to be an unbridled one in a second term. He chose a running mate who’s an ardent advocate of industrial policy. And Trump is an easy money guy, far from an inflation hawk.

I don’t think Trump has it in him to make a disciplined, non-demagogic case on the economy to swing voters. Calling Harris “Comrade Kamala” isn’t persuasive. 

Something else I think is baked into this election is the number of voters who think that Trump attempted a coup and that his attempt is disqualifying. Efforts to expand that number have proven unavailing, something I find disappointing and alarming. Nevertheless, as a matter of cold political calculation, I don’t think that’s an issue that will do much to move swing voters toward Harris.

The Harris strategy appears to be to turn out the base and rely upon personality and tone to fetch enough swing voters to make the difference. Trump is likely to play into that strategy. He can’t help himself. 

Reach Robb at robtrobb@gmail.com.