When Kamala Harris emerged as the nominee of her party, it was evident that the Democratic party was in disarray. A month later, after the party’s convention, it’s clear her attempts at repairing the broken coalition have been less than successful. Despite the recent poll conducted by the New York Times and Siena College showing a two percentage point lead over Donald J. Trump across battleground states, a closer look reveals the extent of Harris’s problematic standings in the demographic landscape.
Harris’s purported success in the polls hides an uncomfortable truth: her gains have not been equal across all demographic groups. Her overt appeals have led to significant upticks among younger voters, nonwhite voters, and female voters, but disappointingly no significant gains among older voters or white men. The question now arises, how sustainable is political success that’s limited to a segment of the population, neglecting others?
In the context of Trump’s popularity, an interesting trend reveals itself: those harboring an ‘unfavorable’ view of Trump have shifted allegiances. While Trump led voters who had a ‘somewhat unfavorable’ view of him back in May, it appears that Harris now has the temporary favour of this group. However, the longstanding allegiance to these political figures underlies an unsettling truth – it seems the current political climate is defined more by disdain for opponents rather than true support for any one candidate.
Harris’s startling growth in popularity among women underscores a highly polarizing campaign strategy. The disparity between her gain of 11 points among women compared to a meager improvement of three points among men further compounds this divisive approach. It paints a picture of a campaign that seems to have chosen its focus groups and ignored the others.
The shift among women, however, isn’t restricted to just young, nonwhite women. It includes nearly every demographic subgroup, even older white women, and white women without a tertiary education. This selective growth indicates a potentially fracturing political landscape where points are gained or lost based on the demographic you belong to, rather than national issues or broad-spectrum policy concerns.
Conversely, demographics where Harris has failed to make significant inroads show a stark contrast. Those identifying as ‘somewhat conservative,’ very conservative voters, and, unsurprisingly, Republicans remain mostly unswayed by Harris’s campaign. Even those with a very favorable view of Trump haven’t budged and seem unlikely to be swayed by Harris or any Democratic initiatives.
One undeniable aspect of Harris’s campaign is the lack of traction among ‘somewhat conservative’ voters, a demographic where Biden seemed to have an opportunity. Biden, with his moderate political leanings, had the potential to woo a small fraction of conservative voters who were skeptical of Trump. Harris, who positioned herself far to the left in the 2020 campaign, does not seem to possess the same appeal.
One demographic that presents a particular conundrum for the Harris campaign is nonwhite voters over 45. Biden maintained his standing among these voters, holding around 70 percent of their votes in the last round of Times/Siena polls. It appears Harris’s appeal has fallen short, despite her gains in younger nonwhite voters.
Perhaps the most significant dent in the armour of the Harris campaign is among white men, a demographic that she has largely failed to charm. While she may have increased her appeal among women and nonwhite voters, white men have hardly budged. In fact, further scrutiny shows that white men over the age of 65—a demographic subset not included in the table—are leaning six points more towards Trump.
These poll results offer just a snapshot in time, and with the dynamics of political campaigns ever-changing, these numbers could see variations post-convention and post-debate. However, the data paints a clear picture of a campaign that—for better or worse—is failing to cast a wide net, demonstrating a lack of appeal among crucial demographic groups.
While the Democrats may celebrate the gains among certain demographic groups, they must also acknowledge that their strategy and messaging have large blind spots. The fact that many voters are shifting allegiances based on their dislike for the opponent rather than a strong belief in the candidate is not lost on the observers. The question that Harris’s campaign has to answer is – ‘Are we running merely anti-Trump campaign or can we garner support based on our policies?’
The results and disparity in support among various demographic groups also speak volumes about the state of the Democratic party and its ability to resonate with a broader electorate. If history is any lesson, winning elections often requires appealing to a tapestry of demographic groups, not just a select few. A campaign strategy that leaves significant proportions of the population feeling sidelined may not be a recipe for sustained success.
In conclusion, while the campaign may celebrate what they perceive as small wins, the data suggests a stark reality. There are both apparent and hidden cracks in the Democratic coalition, and a strategy that appears more negative than holistic. Can these cracks be mended in time? Will the party find a way to bridge the divide and create a more inclusive appeal? Only time will tell. If anything, this election cycle proves yet again that in politics, nothing can be taken for granted.
Kamala Harris Fails to Build Broad Appeal: Disastrous Reality for Democrats appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
