What Harris needs to do now

Wow! Even for someone who in early July thought she would be a good candidate, Kamala Harris has overperformed. The Democratic Party unified quickly, she took the reins without hesitation, and she has now claimed high ground.

Donald Trump is flummoxed. Instead of running against a wizened pol hesitant to go on the offensive, he now faces a vibrant, high-energy woman determined to take the fight to him. The polling has already turned in her direction, putting her up a couple of points nationally and at least even in most of the battleground states. What could go wrong?

Lots of hurdles ahead in September

Trump’s effort to label her a communist extremist isn’t gaining much traction. A lot of Americans don’t remember communism. A woman who spent decades as a prosecutor doesn’t fit easily into the extremism box.

But lots of other potential hurdles loom. The presidential debate, if Trump doesn’t back out, will take place on September 10. Harris should be able to slice and dice him when it comes to policy, but a debate is also about image and presence. She wins on those scores with me, but a woman as commander-in-chief is a novelty for Americans. We’ll have to see how it goes.

The vice presidential candidates will also debate, on October 1. There Tim Walz’s normality and J.D. Vance’s weirdness will no doubt be on display. Debates, however, are always high-risk, high-gain events. A single flub or cutting remark can determine the impression a debate leaves.

Between the debates, on September 17 and 18, a Federal Reserve meeting will have an opportunity to begin lowering interest rates. It will act if it thinks the economy is slowing enough to end the post-pandemic inflationary spiral. It will postpone the decision if inflation still looks resilient. Harris will be a lot better off if inflation continues edging downwards toward the 2% annual goal from the 2.9% August figure. The new figure will be out September 11.

October will be about the battlegrounds

Campaigning is already focused mainly on the few states where the outcome is not already clear. The American “Electoral College,” an 18th century anomaly embedded in the constitution, makes that a necessary feature of American presidential elections. Each state has a number of electoral votes equivalent to its members of the Congress (two Senators per state plus a number of Representatives proportional to population). This system favors less populous states, in many of which the Republicans are strong.

270towin.com figures the state-by-state breakdown this way:

The battlegrounds are Nevada, Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Georgia. Some might add North Carolina or Ohio. But basically you’ve got a contest in two states in the west, three in the middle west, and one other in the south.

In all these, the main issue will be turnout and ballot access, which is determined by state laws and regulations. Georgia, which is Republican-controlled, has been aggressively trying to limit voting. Such efforts will be undertaken elsewhere as well, including refusal to certify results after the election. The courts will be jammed with efforts to get Republican complaints to the Supreme Court, where Trump can hope his three appointees will once again join in majorities deciding in his favor.

What it will take

The Economist is right. Harris will need more than the good vibes she has already generated to win. But I doubt they are correct about the need for more policy detail. They want principled consistency. Most American voters wouldn’t know if she offered it. The main thing for Harris is to convince Americans that she understands their problems and has the ability and interest to try to solve them. That is where Trump is weakest. It should be where she is strongest.