It’s true and it’s necessary to take that seriously. It’s also a strategy. Here’s Greg Sargent in a fascinating interview with Ron Brownstein, one of the best:
Sargent: Ron, you sometimes hear pundits argue that Harris should stop putting so much effort into attacking Trump as a threat to democracy and highlighting his authoritarianism, that the economy and health care will matter more to swing voters and so forth. But in your reporting, you’re finding that this large reservoir of voters, right-leaning moderates, independents, pretty affluent suburban, are absolutely gettable with messages about Trump’s authoritarianism. They’re deeply troubled and motivated by the anti-democratic threat Trump poses, right? Those voters are there. They’re a big growth opportunity for Harris still, and they are the swing constituency now, or at least one of them. Would it be malpractice not to go after them in this way?
Brownstein: Big is a strong word, in terms of how many voters we’re talking about on any front. But yes, I thought her appearances with Liz Cheney this week were a precision-guided missile aimed at exactly the voters she needs in exactly the places where they are most concentrated with exactly the message that will move them. I thought it could not have been more precisely targeted at what she can actually achieve.
She has made progress on the economy, particularly on questions of “Who fights for you?” But in the end, the share of voters who think that they were better off under Trump’s policies than Biden’s policies before Covid is an insurmountable obstacle if the frame of the election is solely “Who is going to deliver more for your bottom line?” She’s gotten more competitive on that, but if that’s the question people are asking the last week and going into the ballot box, I don’t think she can get there. But there’s no reason for that to be the question, right? Trump, every day, shows you why that shouldn’t be the question.
Sargent: Right, but there is a bit of a split-screen effect here. Harris is making these major appeals to affluent suburbanites, Republican-leaning, educated women, and so forth on the anti-democratic threat on how disgusting Trump is and what a menace he is, but an immense amount of resources is going into Democratic ads about the economy, touting her plans to reduce childcare costs, health care costs, home-buying costs, etc. Much of the ad spending is going to that according to some analysis I’ve seen. That’s aimed at these more working-class voters, both nonwhite and white. How do we make sense of these two tracks happening at the same time? Are all those ads just an effort to just contain Trump’s advantage while they win the election or try to win it on the anti-democratic stuff? How do we think about this?
Brownstein: Just think of it as different tracks aimed at different voters. In 2012, [I was] writing a story about how Obama was focusing on Romney as a plutocrat who closed the factory in town in the Rust Belt battlegrounds, which by then included Ohio, and running more on values in the Sun Belt battlegrounds. You have to be able to communicate to multiple audiences at the same time. As we said, all votes are fungible. For Harris in the former blue wall states, so I always put that former in there to distinguish, she has to get into the mid 40s among the noncollege white women. She can grow then among the college white women, try to hold her own among the college white men. And then she could withstand some erosion among the blue-collar white men and Black men.
Don’t forget, the paradox is that these states look best for her because generally speaking, Harris, like Biden before her, is holding the 2020 levels of support more among whites than nonwhites. College-educated white women, Greg, are three to four times as big a share of the electorate across these three states as Black men. So if she can increase, I hope my math isn’t wrong here, five or six points among college white women in these states—which don’t forget Biden won—she could withstand losses of 15 points, I think, among the Black men, which is not going to happen.