How Trump owned Harris

Last month, Kamala Harris took part in an interview on ABC's "The View," where she was asked by the host Sunny Hostin if she would have done anything differently than President Joe Biden during the past four years. 

In a rare misstep for a politician of her stature aiming to become the first female President of the United States, she stumbled in an incredible fashion and said: "There is not a thing that comes to mind. Not a thing."

The aftermath of the incident is anyone's guess: it sent shockwaves through the Democratic camp, with many fearing it was a missed opportunity to carve out her own path, while 'team Trump' seized on the moment, playing her response on a loop to their advantage.

It was like a goalkeeper throwing the ball directly to the opposing striker— an open goal for Trump in a one-on-one situation.

And that sums up the reason behind Harris's fall in the election, all the while Trump surged ahead, once again proving his political acumen and ability to capitalise on others' mistakes. 

This was particularly impactful in the context of a close race, with Trump leading 276 to Harris's 219 in the electoral college votes.

The trend of closely contested U.S. presidential elections has been evident since 2000, with many decided by narrow margins. Over the past 100 years, Democrats and Republicans have each won 13 times. Since 1924, seven of 26 elections were decided by fewer than 100 electoral votes, with five of those occurring in the last 24 years. 

The most contested election was in 2000, where George W Bush narrowly defeated Al Gore 271 to 266. The largest victory margin in this period came in 1936 when Franklin D Roosevelt won by 523 to 8 against Alfred M Landon.

How Harris faltered while Trump gained

Harris's struggles in the election were compounded by a divided base within her own party, while Trump benefited from the unwavering loyalty of his supporters. 

Trump may have been touted by many as the walking, talking, classic example of a modern day fascist, he at least had been able to amass a cult following who kept on standing behind him even in the face of his most controversial moments. 

He tapped into the sentiments of white identity, nationalism, and populism in a way that figures like Pat Buchanan or Ross Perot never managed to. Unlike traditional conservative followers, Trump's core supporters displayed an extreme loyalty that resembled a cult of personality, distinguishing them from typical voters.

And more importantly, alongside taking full advantage of Harris's mistakes, Trump made sure to not make similar mistakes. 

It had long been said that Biden, maybe due to his age or something else, was increasingly out of touch with the general people of the US. And Harris, much younger than him, made the same mistake. She simply overlooked the frustration brewing across the nation over the years.

The rising costs of essentials like gas, groceries and rent weighed heavily on people's minds, leaving them searching for a candidate who could relate to their struggles. Biden's handling of the Ukraine-Russia war also faced criticism, with many believing the conflict fueled inflation and economic strain in the US, further amplifying frustration over supply chain disruptions and government spending.

Even within the Democratic Party, Biden's support was not unanimous. Concerns about his approach to immigration, border security, and policies like student loan forgiveness divided the party.

Yet, in her campaign, Harris failed to acknowledge these issues or reach out to frustrated voters. Instead of addressing these grievances head-on, she seemed to gloss over them. This inability to connect on pressing issues made many question if she was the right candidate for a time when the nation faced significant challenges.

Trump, however, not only addressed the issues, sometimes he even went overboard. He consistently portrayed the US economy under President Biden as "the worst economy ever."

He claimed that under Biden's leadership, inflation soared, job growth stagnated, and economic opportunities were diminished for everyday Americans, which resonated with many Americans who are frustrated with the status quo under the Biden administration.

Trump also often emphasised his stance of wanting to avoid deep US involvement in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. His comments focussed on his belief that the US should not be heavily entangled in the war and that under his leadership, the conflict would have been handled differently. 

Many Americans saw Trump's stance on not spending money on international conflicts as a good solution to the US's economic woes. For voters who prioritised the economy over other issues—and the nearly half who reported being financially worse off than four years ago—the choice for the next president seemed clear: Republican Donald Trump.

About 31% of voters identified the economy as their top issue, second only to concerns about the state of democracy (35%), according to Edison Research exit polling. Among those focused on the economy, Trump won 79% of the vote, compared to Harris's 20%.

High inflation and its impact on financial well-being further shifted voter support to Trump. More than half of voters reported moderate hardship from inflation last year, with nearly one in four facing severe hardship. Trump won 50% of those facing moderate difficulty and 73% of those suffering severe hardship.

Edison's exit polling revealed that 45% of voters felt their family's financial situation was worse than four years ago, up from 20% in 2020. Among these voters, 80% backed Trump, compared to just 17% for Harris. Despite strong indicators of economic growth, consumers remained dissatisfied with the economy, further fueling Trump's appeal.

Meanwhile, Harris failed to win over the "progressive section" of the voters as well. Particularly her record as a prosecutor and attorney general also worked against her and alienated progressive voters. 

She might have branded herself as a "progressive prosecutor," but her policies were viewed as harsh and disproportionately targeted communities of colour. 

Harris's support for aggressive prosecution of "quality of life" crimes (like loitering and truancy), her role in enforcing strict penalties under the three-strikes law, and her previous stance against decriminalising sex work contributed to a perception that she was more of a "tough-on-crime" candidate than a genuine progressive.

Her approach was shaped by a political strategy from the pre-Black Lives Matter era, where being "tough on crime" was often viewed positively.

However, as attitudes shifted among the Democrats and independent progressives alike, this strategy backfired. Voters became increasingly aware of her prosecutorial record, leading to a decline in her support, fundraising struggles, and difficulties connecting with the progressive wing of her party.

Trump made no mistake to capitalise on this situation by positioning himself as a "law and order" candidate, a strategy he successfully employed during his 2016 campaign as well.

He emphasised his strong stance on crime and his commitment to maintaining public safety. He frequently appealed to voters' concerns about rising crime, particularly in urban areas, and used law enforcement as a central theme of his political platform. Trump promised to support police forces, denounced calls to defund the police, and framed his opposition to protests and social unrest as a defence of law and order.

And then comes the Israel-Palestine issue, which made the distinction between Harris and Trump even more apparent.  

Harris's stance on the Israel-Palestine conflict, particularly her unwavering support for Israel's "right to defend itself" while also acknowledging the devastating humanitarian crisis in Gaza, further contributed to her political fall. 

While her position aligned with President Biden's, it did little to distinguish her as a leader capable of addressing the complex frustrations many Americans felt regarding the war and its toll on innocent lives. Her failure to decisively address the demands of pro-Palestinian activists, combined with the perception that her statements lacked boldness or originality, alienated a key portion of the country's progressive base. 

This, along with her public positioning against Israeli military actions, opened her up to criticism from both pro-Israel groups and her political adversaries as well, further eroding her appeal and setting her back in a highly polarised election race.

In contrast, Trump always maintained a more unequivocal and supportive stance towards Israel, positioning himself as a staunch ally. 

During his previous term, the Trump administration recognised Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and moved the US Embassy there, a highly controversial but popular decision among pro-Israel groups. He consistently backed Israel's right to defend itself and dismissed calls for a more balanced approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict. 

Even amid the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict that began on 7 October last year, Trump did not shy away from calling out "Palestinian militants," particularly Hamas, for the attack. He took a hardline stance against any form of violence from Palestinian groups, further reinforcing his commitment to Israel's security. He also suggested that the US should continue to withhold aid to the Palestinian territories.

Trump used the 2023 Hamas attack to criticise Biden's handling of the situation, arguing that the Biden administration was weak and lacked a strong stance on Israel's defence. Trump suggested that under his leadership, the US would have been more decisive and supportive of Israel in such a crisis.

In line with his broader rhetoric, Trump criticised groups and politicians in the US who supported Palestinian causes or called for more action to protect Palestinians amid the violence. He accused such voices of being aligned with terrorism or showing weakness toward Israel's security.

At the end of the day, such stances also bolstered Trump's appeal among pro-Israel and evangelical Christian voters, a significant segment of American society, while pushing Harris closer to an inevitable decline.