... Harris is well aware of how engaging with Trump’s most reprehensible maneuvers and taunts poses the danger of sinking herself into the mud with him, and even allowing him to gain political benefits from what should be massive political missteps — such as Trump’s claim that Harris recently “happened to turn Black.” And Harris, almost alone among Trump’s many political opponents, has come up with an effective strategy for responding to Trump’s gutter politics game: ignoring it.She did this most notably in her CNN interview with Dana Bash.
When Bash asked Harris to comment on Trump’s contention that she “happened to turn Black recently for political purposes, questioning a core part of [her] identity,” ... Harris simply shut down the line of questioning by responding, “Same old tired playbook. Next question, please.” When a plaintive Bash asked, “That’s it?“ Harris replied, “That’s it.”I hope Lurie is right about this -- Harris is doing well in the polls, but it remains to be seen whether she's doing well enough to overcome the GOP's Electoral College advantage. But it's clear that she's successfully brushing off Trump's attacks in a way his previous opponents haven't.
... When a showman like Trump is no longer the center of attention, he turns into that most pathetic of Hollywood creatures: a has-been. With her “that’s it” declaration, Harris left Trump standing alone in the pit, covered in mud, with nobody to wrestle.
But could they have done what she's doing? Think about his main 2016 primary challengers: Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Carly Fiorina, and Ben Carson. I'm sure I'd have a hard time convincing most of you that Trump is charismatic (though I think he is, regrettably). However, I think you'd agree that he's more charismatic than those candidates. Not one of them inspires voters the way Harris has since she entered the race. It's hard to imagine any of them doing so even under ideal (i.e., Trump-free) conditions. So when Trump attacked them, they had two choices: respond uncharismatically or say nothing uncharismatically. They didn't have the choice of saying nothing and using charisma to ease their way past the attacks, because they didn't have charisma. So Trump won all those fights.
Trump had the same advantage in the 2024 primaries. Ron DeSantis? It's hard to imagine a big-league politician with less charisma. And while Nikki Haley appeals to some voters, she's not exactly compelling. Trump beat them while barely campaigning against them. It's as if the memory of his past smart-assery was more compelling than the real-time campaigning of his opponents.
Trump's 2016 general election opponent was Hillary Clinton. Clinton inspires good feeling in many voters, but it's hard-earned: she's not a naturally gifted politician like her husband in his prime, or like Barack Obama. When she ran that year, too many voters had been primed to dislike her by decades of smears, and other voters were angry at her for positions she'd taken over the years on war, crime, wealth, and other issues. So it would have been hard for her to brush off Trump's attacks the way Harris has. She wasn't running a campaign that was inherently exciting.
Joe Biden got away with a low-charisma campaign in 2020 because so many people were fed up with Trump, and because conditions in the pandemic year led us not to expect traditional politicking. In 2024, voters expected a normal campaign, and Biden was four years older and less able to deliver.
Until now, Trump hasn't faced an opponent the camera loves. He hasn't faced an opponent who generates excitement among the base the way he did among his base in 2016. (And even though his speeches are weirder and shakier, the base still senses charisma in the idea of him.)
Kamala Harris has the ability to generate large amounts of good feeling. That's what's allowing her to shrug off Trump's attacks. It's not something that can be taught.
No comments:
Post a Comment