Following Joe Biden’s unprecedented exit from the 2024 presidential race, the presumptive Democratic nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris sparked intense interest and excitement nationwide. Despite her poor approval ratings as Vice President and the general unpopularity of the Biden administration, Kamala Harris managed to energise and enthuse a seemingly dormant Democratic Party. Currently, she maintains a 3% advantage over Trump in the polls, and the Harris campaign amassed $351 million in August, more than double the amount raised by the Trump campaign. However, the question remains: will the United States see its first woman in the Oval Office next January, or are we witnessing a repeat of the events from the 2016 Clinton campaign?
One of the most defining moments of the Harris campaign was the fiery Presidential debate on September 10th. Most major news networks have dubbed Kamala Harris as the indisputable victor of the debate. Her performance was skilful and assertive, as she defended the Biden administration’s policies and successfully countered attacks on her political record. During the debate, she addressed critical issues for the American electorate such as her progressive stance on healthcare, the economy, and social justice. Harris’ compelling performance led to CNN post-debate polls projecting that 63% of voters believed that she had emerged as the winner, with her favourability rating increasing from 39% before the candidates took the stage to 45% afterwards. On the other hand, her opponent, Donald Trump, was criticised significantly following the debate for his divisive claims such as that “they’re [Haitian immigrants] eating the dogs, they’re eating the cats.” Though these quotes have surfaced online as humorous soundbites, they represent the absurdity of Trump’s debate performance, characterised by a multitude of lies and aggressive attacks on Harris. However, the impact of presidential debates on the race is a topic of debate among political scientists and historians. Generally, there is a belief that the political system’s polarization means that only politically engaged individuals who already support a candidate are the ones who tune in to watch the debates. An analysis by the University of Missouri in 2013 found that 86.3% of respondents stated that their candidate preference remained unchanged after the debate, and that it only helped 7% of voters come to their decision. So, though the debate may have helped a small margin of undecided voters come to a conclusion on their preferred candidate, it is unlikely that the outcome will sway the polls significantly.
Harris’ strong progressive stance on abortion has also resonated well with voters, particularly Democratic voters and women. This issue has been particularly motivating in recent state ballot initiatives to protect abortion rights, such as those in Vermont and Michigan, which passed with overwhelming support. According to a poll conducted by Gallup in May 2024, 35% of Americans believe abortion should be legal under any circumstances, 50% believe it should be legal under certain circumstances, and only 12% of Americans believe abortion should be made illegal. Thus, the beliefs of Trump’s MAGA voter base do not align with the majority of the American electorate. Moreover, during the 2022 midterms, many voters expressed that the protection of reproductive rights was a central policy for them, helping the Democrats win great victories. This is an extremely significant metric for Harris as, throughout the debate and her rallies, she has maintained that she is a firm supporter of women’s reproductive freedom and her defence of abortion access is a point that would allow her to paint a sharp contrast with Trump, who has taken credit for Roe’s demise and argued that abortion should be decided on a state-by-state basis. Furthermore, through the 2022 midterm victories, it is also safe to say that abortion is a particularly motivating issue for Democratic voters, which could increase Democratic voter turnout this November.
Harris’ Vice Presidential pick, Tim Walz, was also a major success for her campaign. Walz’s background as a former public-school teacher, football coach, and veteran made him more relatable to the American electorate. His political stance strikes a balance of progressive and moderate attitudes that appeal to both Democrats and undecided voters and his warmth and charisma have helped unite a divided Democratic party. On the other hand, Trump’s running mate, JD Vance, is unfathomably unpopular and, according to recent data, has an average favourability rating of 33% due to his divisive far-right rhetoric. Whilst some political scientists argue that the selection of a Vice President does not determine the outcome of a Presidential election, the McCain campaign in 2008 proves otherwise. McCain’s choice of the incredibly unpopular Sarah Palin as his running mate was one of the main factors contributing to his decisive defeat to Obama. And, according to a recent article by ABC News, it is reported that Vance’s favourability ratings are significantly lower than those of Palin in 2008. We can assume that loyal MAGA voters will support Trump regardless of his choice for Vice President. However, the decision could have a significant impact in isolating moderate Republicans and undecided voters who may feel unrepresented and uneasy about Vance’s extreme rhetoric. Thus, though the significance of the Vice Presidential pick has been disputed, Vance’s radical views and Walz’s likeability could play a critical role in swaying undecided voters this election season and could be the final push to the White House that her campaign desperately needs.
But, we should refrain from claiming that Vice President Harris’ victory this November is guaranteed. Though her lead in the polls may seem promising, it is nowhere near secure. A 2-3% margin in the polls is virtually a tie and though her lead is ever-increasing, who knows what the coming months will bring. It is also vital to stress that, due to the nature of the American political system, having the majority of the vote does not ensure victory. For example, in 2016, Hillary Clinton had 2.9 million more votes than Trump, but due to the Electoral College, Trump won the Presidency. Thus, to get a more comprehensive understanding of the trajectory of this election, websites such as ‘270 to win’ compile polling data from each state to predict the electoral college votes, thus showing a much more accurate insight into the possible outcome of this election. Currently, excluding the tossup states, the Democrats are projected to have 226 electoral votes whilst the Republicans are predicted 219. Whilst this too is promising, it is beneficial that the Harris campaign remains energised and enthusiastic in the coming months as their campaign continues.
Overall, Harris’ campaign is currently in a challenging position. While they have the potential to win, it is indisputable that this race is going to be exceedingly close and she needs more than just a 3% lead in the polls to secure the Presidency. However, if Harris’ campaign maintains the same level of passion and energy that they have shown us thus far, there is reason for optimism.