Put policy aside: Kamala Harris will win or lose based on the excitement factor

Kamala Harris’s first big policy speech did not exactly draw rave reviews from a media establishment that largely seems to adore her.

But with the Democratic convention getting under way, does that matter?

Perhaps the most stinging criticism came from the Washington Post’s mostly liberal editorial board, which declared that "unfortunately, instead of delivering a substantial plan, she squandered the moment on populist gimmicks."

That may well be true. But again, does it really matter?

KAMALA HARRIS, TIME COVER GIRL: IS HER SURGE AGAINST TRUMP FUELED BY AN ENDLESS MEDIA HONEYMOON?

Policy is crucially important as voters weigh how the candidates would govern for the next four years. It’s especially vital because Harris suddenly emerged as the substitute nominee in a three-month campaign – not a "coup," as Donald Trump says – when Joe Biden was pressured into stepping aside.

But as ideologically different as the two nominees are, I believe policy will play a relatively minor role in 2024.  

Josh Barro, in the Atlantic, says a crackdown on price-gouging will make things worse and be virtually impossible to enforce: 

"The substance likely won’t appeal to many people who actually know about economics. But it’s hard for me to argue with the politics….

"Harris is trying to win a presidential election, and to win elections, you run on popular ideas." 

By the way, while I agree that going after price-gougers won’t work–groceries already operate on very thin margins–I see the Harris proposals as being mischaracterized as wage and price controls. I lived through Richard Nixon doing just that in the early 1970s and it was a disastrous failure. Harris isn’t saying the government should set prices for all products, though I can see why that’s a useful attack line for the Trump campaign.

DEMS CONVENE IN CHICAGO TO NOMINATE HARRIS-WALZ AS ANTI-ISRAEL PROTESTERS PREPARE COUNTER-RALLY

I also agree with the Post’s editorial page that the vice president is offering all kinds of expensive goodies – such as a $25,000 down payment for first-time home buyers – without explaining how to pay for them. As the paper notes, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says her overall plan would add $1.7 trillion to the deficit over the next decade. That’s sobering stuff.

But I don’t believe this election will turn on policy. Harris, who’s done a strikingly skillful job of handling her first three weeks, is drawing big crowds, raising a fortune and rising in the polls because she brings youth, vigor, excitement and, her favorite word, joy.

Harris is, among other things, a cultural phenomenon and a TikTok sensation. Much of what she’s proposing now is largely symbolic and will never pass, but she’s sending a message that she’s laser-focused on reducing inflation on kitchen-table issues for middle-class families (and distancing from Bidenomics).

That doesn’t mean she’s going to win. Trump still has an easier path to 270. The VP still has to win Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, even though a New York Times/Sienna College poll shows her closing the gap or statistically tied in four Sun Belt states – Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona and Nevada.

Harris remains, as she says, the underdog.

But if Kamala does pull it out, it will be because key voters, especially women, are drawn to her personally. And in the end, that’s how most elections are won.

In 2016, when everyone expected a Hillary victory, Trump ran on a few key issues – especially immigration and crime – but he won because of his image as a relentless fighter, not to mention an entertaining one. 

After the eight-year Obama presidency, enough voters were drawn to Trump’s culture war–and the media were criticized for carrying his rallies!–that the Democrats’ Midwestern blue wall collapsed.

DINERS FURIOUS AFTER THEY'RE CLEARED OUT OF EATERY FOR 'STAGED' VP HARRIS STOP: 'THIS IS BS'

Running against a 59-year-old woman of color–and a hostile press corps–seems to have thrown Trump off his game. While insisting he is "entitled" to make "personal attacks" against Harris–despite advice from the likes of Lindsey Graham–the former president has continued to denigrate the vice president, rightly noting that she and her campaign are ripping him as well. That’s the Trump pattern. 

And after journalists and commentators kept insisting that Joe Biden had the mental acuity for another four years, the press has now flipped to spotlighting every mistake by the 78-year-old Trump. Man, does Trump miss Biden – he keeps talking about how Joe was unfairly deposed – because he spent years preparing to run against the frail 81-year-old president.

Trump has in fact become the old man in the race, but this is sheer media hypocrisy.

Imagine how depressed the Democrats and the pundits would be if Biden had stuck it out and was speaking in Chicago as the nominee, headed for certain defeat. Instead, they’re swept up by Kamala fever.

And most of the mainstream media, having pounded the president for avoiding interviews, are largely uninterested in whether Harris does any. She’s getting a total pass. The veep did take questions for about 4 minutes the other day, the second time she’s done that, but largely because Trump and his allies keep ripping her as a Teleprompter candidate. 

Trump openly says he wants to define Harris as a communist, so he dredges up far-left positions she took four years ago as if those are her current positions, a game played by both sides. But she left the opening by not explaining her flip-flops (or, more charitably, evolution). Policy may matter to that extent. We’ll also see after the convention whether her numbers are a "sugar high," meaning the inevitable bump may soon bring her back to earth.

Keep in mind that Harris still hasn’t done an interview. Nor, for that matter, has Tim Walz, while JD Vance is working the Sunday shows and holding pressers.

The reason: with such a docile press corps, which Harris prefers to brief off the record on Air Force 2, it’s working for her.

One more thing: While Harris largely ducks the press, MSNBC refused to cover the second of Trump’s two news conferences in about a week, with Nicolle Wallace saying such events "have been less about the issues and the news lately, as if they ever were, and more about threats and lies and demeaning people." CNN bailed for awhile when Trump read off blue cards for 40 minutes, then jumped back in when he took questions. Only Fox carried the whole thing (and has been airing some of Kamala’s rallies!).

Trump has also been tying Harris to the unpopularity of the Biden-Harris record, which is a common problem for VPs who don’t have the ability to set policy on their own.

MSNBC’s all-liberal lineup for big events – Rachel Maddow, Joy Reid, Lawrence O’Donnell, Chris Hayes – hates Trump with the heat of a thousand suns. They basically don’t think he should ever be allowed on the air because it hurts their reputation (and, not coincidentally, ticks off their audience). 

Instead, they talk about Trump all day, and they have the next 22 hours to point out falsehoods and exaggerations.

So by that logic, why wouldn’t they blow off his convention speech as well?