“Taking responsibility for oneself is empowering and freeing, but often it’s easier to point fingers and make others the villain of our stories.” — Unknown
By Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel
CHULA VISTA, California — When I think about how Kamala Harris ran her campaign, she faced significant challenges, some of which stemmed from her campaign’s messaging strategies and public perception issues. Here are several key factors that played into her campaign’s difficulties:
Harris failed to understand what the average American citizen was going through whenever they went to the store to purchase groceries. Housing costs and the rising utility bills made American citizens feel resentment and anger. When the inflation rate exceeds the typical family’s income, the people begin to feel she is not listening to their financial pain. Hollywood actors gave the impression that Harris appealed to the wealthy and powerful and did not relate well to the working class, who found Trump’s message more assuring.
Over the last four years, the Democratic Party seemed obsessed with promoting expensive EV vehicles, and their promise to eliminate the combustive engine made transportation difficult. Democratic leaders were again out of touch with the soaring rise of energy. Harris’s messaging may not have sufficiently or effectively addressed these top voter priorities, which could have impacted her appeal among crucial voter segments.
Politicians running for the Presidency must be articulate and persuasive. Kamala’s endless word-salads and repetitious communication style gave the impression she had little ability to think while standing on her feet. Had she possessed the oratorical skills of Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, she probably would have done a lot better.
Harris’s campaign tone may have been perceived as too critical. This is significant in political campaigns, where candidates’ conduct can heavily influence voter sentiment. Negative campaigning has often been seen to backfire if it goes beyond what voters are comfortable with. Rather than stressing her plans for improving the country, Harris focused on invoking Trump’s name dozens of times. Decent people have a strong disdain for negative campaigning.
Initially, I thought when Tony Hinchcliffe made crude jokes about Latinos having babies and called Puerto Rico a “floating island of garbage,” I thought this October surprise might have doomed Trump, even though most of the people at Madison Square Garden booed the stupid comedian. But when President Biden called Trump supporters “garbage,” Trump cleverly donned the uniform of a garbage man. Working at McDonald’s showed that Trump was endearing and likable. Biden seemed to be passive-aggressive when “supporting” Harris, especially when he wore a MAGA hat!
Trump has the charisma and spirit of President Andrew Jackson and PT Barnum combined with a dash of Teddy Roosevelt. His marketing was ingenious and endearing. Donald Trump and Andrew Jackson both leveraged populist appeal and anti-establishment rhetoric in their presidential campaigns. They positioned themselves as representatives of the “common man,” fighting against political elites. Both were controversial figures, utilizing media effectively to communicate directly with voters—Jackson through supportive newspapers and Trump via social media. Their presidencies were marked by strong nationalism and contentious policies; Jackson’s most notable accomplishment included the Indian Removal Act, while Trump focused on strict immigration policies. Each faced significant election controversies, with Jackson’s 1824 loss involving claims of a “corrupt bargain” and Trump raising issues of electoral interference and voting irregularities. Their strategies reshaped American politics by mobilizing a base of ardent supporters and challenging traditional political norms.
Maybe the most serious problem affecting Harris’s campaign was her inability to focus on a positive and coherent message. Political commentators and campaign consultants often scrutinize campaign ads, labeling them as “powerful” or “game-changing,” though the effectiveness of these ads is often overestimated. The infamous “daisy ad” that President Lyndon Johnson deployed against Barry Goldwater and others like it didn’t demonstrably alter voter behavior as much as is popularly believed. Research in political science shows that negative ads don’t consistently work; they might make the attacked candidate look bad, but they can also make the attacker seem negative. Moreover, while negative ads are memorable, they don’t necessarily convert to votes and are not effective at boosting voter turnout.
Research also counters the common belief that negative campaigning depresses turnout. Instead, it might slightly mobilize voters by highlighting the election’s stakes. Most campaign ads, positive or negative, don’t significantly impact whether people vote. Personal interaction, rather than impersonal broadcast ads, tends to be more effective at mobilizing voters.
Political advertising also has no “secret sauce” that guarantees success. The myriad details of ads, from the use of color and music to the choice of voiceover, do not conclusively sway voters. The effectiveness of these elements is dubious, and even if an effective formula were found, it would likely be quickly adopted by others, neutralizing any advantage. Thus, while campaign ads are costly, their impact on election outcomes is limited and often overstated by those who stand to profit from their production.
Choosing Tom Walz over Josh Shapiro as VP was a dreadful mistake. Josh Shapiro would have helped her claim Pennsylvania.
In short, the Democratic Party should have fielded a stronger candidate than Kamala Harris. I hope the party leadership finds a superior candidate to unite our country better. President Trump’s Teflon personality helped him, and his family weather numerous cases designed to deter him from running, showing that the United States is tired of the politics of lawfare. In addition, let’s not forget how he survived two assassination attempts. I hope the Democratic Party can extricate itself from the ghosts of Clinton and Obama. Trump showed a fearlessness seldom seen in politics.
*
Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel is spiritual leader of Temple Beth Shalom in Chula Vista.