How did Harris fight back against Trump?

Author: Ouyang Hui, Wu Weili

50 days ago, the Democratic Party of the United States was considered to have lost the game and was in a panic; 50 days later, Harris blasted Trump in the first debate, and the probability of winning the election hit a new high this year, and the morale of the Democratic Party was surging. Why is there such a big change? Is it just because Harris's special identity ignited the enthusiasm of black and female voters? Or is it because she replaced Biden, who was bound to lose, and aroused the hope of Democratic voters? Admittedly, these are indeed the reasons for Harris's rising support rate, but it is far from enough for her to surpass Trump, who is in his heyday. Harris did do some things right, especially learning some of Trump's "successful" experiences and using them on Trump. This article will analyze the key strategies adopted by Harris based on the situation of the first debate between the two on the morning of September 11, Beijing time, and make a preview of the future election situation.

Focus on personality, not policy

Trump has never been a policy expert. In the 2016 presidential election, when he made his debut, Hillary's policy expertise and political experience clearly "beat" him. This was particularly evident in the two rounds of election debates that year, which led to the majority of media and polls showing that Hillary had a greater chance of winning, giving her a 70%-85% chance of winning on the eve of the election.

However, the election results on November 9, 2016 proved that Trump, as a deep "historical personality" who has been in and out of the media for many years, has created his own unique political brand through strong self-promotion and dramatic behavior, and won the favor of the majority of voters. On the other hand, many voters think that Hillary is "hypocritical", "stereotyped", "distant", and "although she is strong, I just don't like her". It can be said that although Hillary won the debate, she lost the hearts of the people.

In 2024, Harris and Hillary took a completely different approach, focusing their main energy on creating a people-friendly image and infecting voters, rather than preaching complex political platforms and persuading voters. In the debate, she repeatedly emphasized that she came from the middle class, so she understood the middle class and their concerns; she talked about her growing up experience at the Democratic National Convention (DNC), including how she rented a house in a working-class community until she was a teenager, how her mother raised her and her sister alone and lived within her means, etc. You know, in the political context of the United States, the middle class is roughly equivalent to the vast majority of people.

Harris also repeatedly told why she became a prosecutor and how she stood up to defend women, children, veterans, students, workers and the elderly, thus showing that she firmly stood on the side of vulnerable groups and ordinary people. Compared with preaching policies, these personal stories can better help her connect with the American public.

Apart from the content, Harris's speaking skills and appeal are also quite outstanding.

During the debate, she painfully listed two real cases of tragedies caused to women by the policy of prohibiting abortion, and then said: "Americans believe that certain freedoms, especially the freedom to make decisions about their own bodies, should not be determined by the government."

In the closing statement of the debate, she said: "From many years of prosecutors, to federal senators, to vice presidents, I have only one client, that is, the people. As a prosecutor, I never ask the victims: Are you Republican or Democrat, but ask: Are you OK?

At the DNC, she said: "I represent the people - on behalf of every American, regardless of party, race, gender or the language spoken by your grandmother - on behalf of my mother and all those who have embarked on a difficult journey, on behalf of those who grew up with me, those who work hard, pursue their dreams, help each other, and all those who can only write their own stories in this greatest country on earth."

Whenever she said these words, her voice was deep and slightly hoarse, her eyes were sincere, and tears seemed to flow. As a long-term observer of American politics and economy who is accustomed to the rhetoric of politicians, I was inexplicably infected by her emotions when listening to her speeches. A friend of mine even shed tears when watching her DNC speech. As a politician, infectiousness is undoubtedly a very important plus.

In comparison, Harris's efforts in policy presentation are relatively limited. Perhaps because the Democratic Party changed its leader at the last minute and had less time to prepare, she did not have many new policy proposals, and her explanation of these few new proposals was also vague. Her "Cost Reduction Plan for American Families", which is independent of Biden's political platform, is only 5 pages long, which is shorter than Trump's 16-page political platform, which is known for its straightforwardness and simplicity. Among them, many proposals on increasing housing supply, preventing Wall Street from raising rents, prohibiting price fraud in food and daily necessities, and reducing the burden of medical care on the people lack clear and visible implementation paths. The Republicans have repeatedly attacked Harris' policies as "empty". Even after yesterday's debate, some media still called Harris' policies "vague".

However, these attacks have not had any impact on Harris's rising support rate. Judging from the results, her campaign strategy of "form over substance" is undoubtedly effective, and she has successfully shaped her own field and voter group. Even if you don't look at the poll data, just look at the actual situation of Harris' campaign speeches in various places. From the airport to the speech site, there are crowds of people and high emotions. The enthusiasm is almost on par with Obama, the most shining political star of the Democratic Party in the past 20 years. Perhaps in today's politically polarized United States, it is difficult for anyone to effectively promote substantive policies, so providing voters with "emotional value" has become a must-have.

Take the "mass line"

In terms of content, promote populist policies. Trump is a representative of right-wing populism in the United States, and he has single-handedly pushed the "MAGA" sect to the top. Harris is not to be outdone. She proposed the concept of "opportunity economy", promised to improve the lives of the middle class, and expressed her desire to "unite America towards a better future". However, her plans, from housing, health care, child tax credits to food price controls, are all left-wing populist in nature. Take her housing plan as an example: on the demand side, it provides first-time homebuyers with a down payment support of up to $25,000; on the supply side, it will build 3 million new homes in the next ten years; on the regulatory side, it will prevent Wall Street investors and "rent pricing data companies" from raising rents. Giving money, building houses by the government, and price controls are all typical left-wing populist policies. In fact, the supply of housing in the United States is mainly subject to the zoning constraint of state and local government approvals. The federal government can do very little, and the probability of building 3 million new homes is a blank check. The Biden administration also promised to build 2 million new homes, but the thunder was loud but the rain was small, and no substantial results were seen. If Harris subsidizes demand without increasing supply, it will only further push up housing prices and aggravate shortages.

Formally, make good use of social media. Trump is the first president of the United States to "govern the country through Twitter". If he said "No one knows social media better than me", no one would probably object. Unexpectedly, the Yangtze River's back waves pushed the front waves, Harris actually joined TikTok, and played it very well, with a momentum of "beating the front waves to death on the beach". Harris once quoted her mother's words in a speech, "I don't know what's wrong with you young people. Do you think you just fell from a coconut tree?" After saying that, she let out a demonic laugh. The Republican Party intercepted this clip and made a short video to ridicule its "nonsense". As a result, her team keenly grasped the entertainment behind it, matched it with songs from the popular album "Brat" and actively spread it on a large scale, making "coconut tree" a hot Internet meme. Netizens have since referred to Harris as Brat. These operations have successfully helped Harris establish a connection with Generation Z and established her young and interesting social media image, which is of great help in increasing the voter turnout of young voters.

Be good at attacking opponents and counterattacking

Attacking opponents is easy to say, but it is extremely difficult to do. It is undoubtedly an art to hit the opponent's vital points and resonate with the public without alienating or hurting potential supporters. Trump is gifted in this regard and is very good at "defining" and "shaping" the opponent. For example, his nicknames are always impressive: "Cheating Hillary" reinforced voters' impression of Hillary as "hypocritical" and "political veteran", and "Sleepy Joe" increased people's concerns about Biden's ability to be president. "How can such a person be president?" As bystanders, we even think the same way as him.

In turn, neither Hillary nor Biden's attacks on Trump left a deep impression on the public. Hillary said Trump lacked the "temperament" and "judgment" required to be president. From the perspective of voters, this is completely a matter of opinion, and many people are just tired of traditional politicians. Biden repeatedly used the Capitol Hill incident to call Trump a "threat to American democracy." However, for most Americans, what does this have to do with themselves? He also used Trump's conviction to call him a "felon", and Trump countered that "it's all political persecution", and the two became talking about their own things. In contrast, Harris's attack on Trump has reached a new height.

1. Create a framework of "prosecutors" versus "criminals", and make the audience feel involved by describing vivid and specific scenes. This point is not prominent in the debate, but it is actually a theme that runs through all the confrontations between the two. In all her past experiences, Harris rarely mentioned her highest position as "vice president" or "senator" as a symbol of political elites, but repeatedly emphasized her experience as a prosecutor. Her main purpose is to contrast herself with Trump and fit the latter into her own framework.

In her first public campaign speech, she said: "I have punished sexual harassers who abuse women, fraudsters who extort consumers, and con men who break the rules for their own selfish gains." Then she changed the subject: "So, I know Donald Trump's type. I have been dealing with this type of person my entire career." In almost every subsequent speech, Harris repeatedly used this narrative framework to create a "prosecutor versus criminal" image that is very familiar to Americans and is similar to legal dramas. She also continuously strengthened the audience's acceptance of this framework through specific examples. Under her exaggeration, the public repeatedly shouted the slogan "Lock him up" at the rally site, and the scene was spectacular.

2. Repeated propaganda that Trump does not represent the people, but stands on the opposite side of the people. She said Trump "only cares about himself", "is not fighting for the middle class, but for his billionaire friends, and wants to provide them with a new round of tax cuts", "wants to repeal Obamacare and put the welfare of tens of thousands of Americans on the chopping block", "wants to impose high tariffs, equivalent to collecting an additional $4,000 in sales tax from each middle-class family each year", "he said Putin did a great job in invading Ukraine... He will not hold the dictator accountable because he wants to be a dictator himself", "If he was elected in 2020, Putin would be sitting in Kiev now, looking at Europe". Each of her attacks is specific, vivid and convincing, and they are all matters of concern to voters.

3. Powerful defensive counterattack. In the debate, she either avoided the important issues and shifted them to topics that were beneficial to her in a timely manner, or cleverly resolved them. For example, Trump labeled her the "immigration czar" and said that the chaos on the southern border was caused by her poor management. Harris did not argue with him too much, but instead fought back, saying that she and President Biden had drafted the most stringent border bill in decades, and Trump ordered the Republicans in Congress to block the bill in order to seize the handle of immigration to attack the Democrats. She also repeatedly stated in her speech that it was because Trump "put personal interests above national interests" that the immigration issue was delayed for a long time.

Finally, in addition to the above carefully designed framework and content, Harris also has strictly implemented on-site tactics. Many American media, including CNN, used the word "bait" to describe the debate between the two, that is, Harris put bait to anger Trump, causing the latter to lose his footing, roaring and punching but frequently hitting the air. The New York Times made a set of charts to count the time and strength of the two "boxers" punching. The results showed that Trump had the upper hand in the total punching time; but Harris won in effectively hitting the vital parts. Behind this scene, there is not only Harris's debating skills, but also full preparation and high self-discipline. On the eve of the debate, Harris conducted intensive special training in a hotel in Pittsburgh, using a "Trump stand-in" to simulate the debate, so that she could strictly implement the established tactics at the debate site. Trump continued to hold campaign rallies in various places before the debate, and only discussed policy and strategic points with his team.

Adjust policy positions in a timely manner with high flexibility

Trump appears to be strong, but in fact his political stance is highly flexible and extremely fickle. Chinese audiences should have an impression of his capriciousness during the 2018-2019 trade war. In this round of elections, he also turned from conservative to more moderate on issues such as abortion, health care, sexual minorities and diverse gender groups (see "2024 US Election Observation II: Trump's Changes and Invariances and Impact on China"). Harris is no less "inferior" in this regard.

As a federal senator from California, Harris was originally close to the extreme left in the US political spectrum, and her congressional voting record was second only to Bernie Sanders in the degree of "leftism". But after standing on the national stage of the general election, Harris quickly reversed all the positions that were not conducive to her campaign.

In terms of energy policy, Harris advocated legislation to ban hydraulic fracturing (the core technology of shale oil and gas production) for environmental considerations during the 2020 Democratic primary. However, shale oil is an important industry in Pennsylvania, the number one swing state in this round of US elections, so Harris changed his position in time and made a clear promise that if he was elected president, he would not ban hydraulic fracturing. In terms of immigration policy, Harris supported the legalization of illegal immigrants in 2020 and provided them with free medical services. In 2024, illegal immigrants in the South became the top three issues of concern to American voters, and Harris instead emphasized the need to comply with and enforce laws against illegal border crossers. On the most important economic policy, she also eased Biden's proposal to increase long-term capital gains tax from the original maximum of 39.6% to 28%, and last week she temporarily proposed a plan to provide start-ups with a tax cut of $50,000. Her positions on issues such as health care, climate change, and Palestine and Israel have also changed to varying degrees, which will not be elaborated here.

Has Harris won the game? Not yet. All of the above has indeed made Harris go from underdog to upper hand, which is not easy for a candidate like her who had mediocre political achievements in the early stage and lacked voter recognition. But so far, she has only tied with Trump, and the election situation is still tense. Under the unique electoral system in the United States, the election results are basically determined by hundreds of thousands of swing voters in key swing states, and it is difficult for polls to accurately capture their positions. Harris is currently only two points ahead of Trump in the polls, and is tied with Trump in Pennsylvania, which is most likely to determine the election results. This weak advantage is completely within the error range of the polls.

Moreover, there are still two months before the election, and there may still be many variables. Putting aside possible emergencies, there are three certain factors that are unfavorable to Harris. First, the US economy is weakening, which is unfavorable to the ruling party to which Harris belongs. In fact, Harris's support rate has risen significantly in states with better economic conditions recently, while it has risen only slightly in states with weaker economies. Second, third-party independent candidate Robert Kennedy announced his withdrawal from the election and supported Trump. His national support rate is about 5%. If most of them switch to Trump, it may change the situation. Third, as we mentioned before, many American voters have conservative ideas in their bones. Whether Harris, as a black woman, can break through the "glass ceiling" mentioned by Hillary remains to be seen. Overall, the anxiety of this round of elections may continue until election day. No matter what the answer is, it may be difficult for the United States to achieve what Harris said about "unity towards a better future", and it will essentially still revolve around the "past". We have systematically sorted out Trump's policies in the last election observation, and will carefully review Harris' policies and their potential impact in the next issue.