Harris vs Trump
Lessons in marketing from Kamala Harris and Donald Trump's presidential debate.
☰
Keep Calmala and Carry Onala
Quick question: what made Kamala Harris a worthy candidate?Well, she is racially diverse and, of course, a woman.
Quick question number two: Do any of those attributes matter when electing a person for the most powerful position in the world?
Hmm…well, they matter to some, but not to others. At least not to the 76 million voters who voted for Donald Trump.
And there is our answer. Harris’ blitzkrieg of a campaign was handicapped from the start. Deep in Joe Biden’s shadow, she hardly had any brand recognition. Her most famous attribute was her laughter, which, for better or for worse, was the one thing her political opponents focused on.
Arguably, an even bigger factor was the fiasco around her nomination. For over a year, Biden has been exhibiting signs of dementia and compromised judgement. The Trump campaign, true to form, pounced on this and started a slanderous campaign, calling Biden’s abilities and sanity into question. Each day made it worse, culminating in the landmark debate on June 28, where Biden’s compromised health and alertness were thrown into sharp relief. Biden and the Democrats then spent the next three weeks trying to spin the debate performance into something not as serious as it actually was. Nevertheless, the signs were clear and Biden withdrew from the campaign on July 21.
Biden then threw his weight behind Harris, as did the Democratic Party.
However, by then Biden had fatally wounded her chances by leaving her a mere three and a half months to campaign.
This, coupled with his unequivocal support for Israel and rampant inflation, went a long way towards sealing the deal for any Democrat, let alone Harris. On top of all that, on July 13, 2024, a bullet barely missed Trump. Far from bringing his campaign to an end, the shooter ended up lending an almost invincible air to Trump’s candidacy.
However, once Harris took charge, she went in all guns blazing. Democrats rallied around her, and the campaign was revitalised as someone comparatively younger and more exciting was now the candidate. Harris emphasised the tenure’s perceived successes, reached out across ideological divides and travelled across the United States. Her campaign raised spectacular amounts.
Harris’ campaign strategy was simple: she was not Trump, and she was not Biden.
On the former front, her campaign made full use of Trump’s apparent white supremacist, inward-looking, misogynistic and often childish image. She highlighted that he was a major threat to diversity and inclusion and made it clear that her policies would differ from Biden’s without being too specific. This paid off and she amassed significant electoral momentum – at least in surveys and polls. Her campaign was arguably capped by her appearance on Saturday Night Live, two days before the election, satirising herself and also making a case for herself as the “calm” option, signing off with “keep calmala and carry onala.”
Ultimately, the odds were stacked against her. A short campaign, a hampered incumbent, an opponent who thrived on populism and victim complex, an over-reliance on surveys and media reports – all conspired to ensure that a large number of Americans did not trust her.
Yet her performance remains remarkable despite the loss. Thanks to the inherent structure of the electoral college, the tiny difference of three million votes translated to a huge gulf of 86 delegates, handing Trump a victory that is, by all appearances, sweeping, decisive and complete. She made a good case against Trump, and perhaps against Biden. In the end, though, she fell short of making a good one for Kamala Harris.
Talha bin Hamid is an accountant and observer of pop culture.talhamid@gmail.com
Read Comments
Related Stories
This, coupled with his unequivocal support for Israel and rampant inflation, went a long way towards sealing the deal for any Democrat, let alone Harris. On top of all that, on July 13, 2024, a bullet barely missed Trump. Far from bringing his campaign to an end, the shooter ended up lending an almost invincible air to Trump’s candidacy.
However, once Harris took charge, she went in all guns blazing. Democrats rallied around her, and the campaign was revitalised as someone comparatively younger and more exciting was now the candidate. Harris emphasised the tenure’s perceived successes, reached out across ideological divides and travelled across the United States. Her campaign raised spectacular amounts.
Harris’ campaign strategy was simple: she was not Trump, and she was not Biden.
On the former front, her campaign made full use of Trump’s apparent white supremacist, inward-looking, misogynistic and often childish image. She highlighted that he was a major threat to diversity and inclusion and made it clear that her policies would differ from Biden’s without being too specific. This paid off and she amassed significant electoral momentum – at least in surveys and polls. Her campaign was arguably capped by her appearance on Saturday Night Live, two days before the election, satirising herself and also making a case for herself as the “calm” option, signing off with “keep calmala and carry onala.”
Ultimately, the odds were stacked against her. A short campaign, a hampered incumbent, an opponent who thrived on populism and victim complex, an over-reliance on surveys and media reports – all conspired to ensure that a large number of Americans did not trust her.
Yet her performance remains remarkable despite the loss. Thanks to the inherent structure of the electoral college, the tiny difference of three million votes translated to a huge gulf of 86 delegates, handing Trump a victory that is, by all appearances, sweeping, decisive and complete. She made a good case against Trump, and perhaps against Biden. In the end, though, she fell short of making a good one for Kamala Harris.
Talha bin Hamid is an accountant and observer of pop culture.talhamid@gmail.com
Read Comments
Related Stories
On the former front, her campaign made full use of Trump’s apparent white supremacist, inward-looking, misogynistic and often childish image. She highlighted that he was a major threat to diversity and inclusion and made it clear that her policies would differ from Biden’s without being too specific. This paid off and she amassed significant electoral momentum – at least in surveys and polls. Her campaign was arguably capped by her appearance on Saturday Night Live, two days before the election, satirising herself and also making a case for herself as the “calm” option, signing off with “keep calmala and carry onala.”
Ultimately, the odds were stacked against her. A short campaign, a hampered incumbent, an opponent who thrived on populism and victim complex, an over-reliance on surveys and media reports – all conspired to ensure that a large number of Americans did not trust her.
Yet her performance remains remarkable despite the loss. Thanks to the inherent structure of the electoral college, the tiny difference of three million votes translated to a huge gulf of 86 delegates, handing Trump a victory that is, by all appearances, sweeping, decisive and complete. She made a good case against Trump, and perhaps against Biden. In the end, though, she fell short of making a good one for Kamala Harris.
Talha bin Hamid is an accountant and observer of pop culture.talhamid@gmail.com