Staff Reports
Kamala Harris is discovering firsthand what many already suspected: teaming up with Liz Cheney in a last-minute campaign strategizing session has backfired spectacularly. Instead of broadening her appeal to swing voters, Harris’ partnership—not to mention the press conferences—has crumbled her credibility faster than a cheap Democratic promise.
Polling data recently released by Data for Progress indicates that Harris managed to undermine her support, particularly in key battleground states like Pennsylvania and Michigan. It seems that while trying to show a little bipartisan flair by cozying up to Cheney, she allowed a real issue to slip through her fingers—namely, the economy. It turns out that voters were less concerned about who’s holding hands with whom, and more focused on skyrocketing prices and inflation. In the minds of these voters, Donald Trump looked more like the problem-solver they needed while Harris played the political equivalent of duck-duck-goose.
Not surprised, she’s Kryptonite
~ ~ Liz Cheney’s endorsement badly hurt Kamala with Independents in Pennsylvania https://t.co/eGtH8eKLxn pic.twitter.com/p8QLJSkPSe— Mary (@matjendav4) November 23, 2024
When dissecting voter enthusiasm, it becomes clear that Harris’ foray into the Cheney camp turned out to be an epic mood killer. The poll results revealed quite a stark contrast: excitement for Harris shot up when she focused on economic issues—by 18 points among Independents in Pennsylvania—while sharing the stage with Cheney resulted in a 7-point decrease. That’s a whopping 25-point swing in favor of economic talk, which clearly showed that voters were onto the charade. Meanwhile, in Michigan, the trend followed suit with more enthusiasm for economic messaging and less when Cheney was involved.
The findings highlight a critical misstep in Harris’ campaign strategy, particularly her decision to divert energy into a partnership that seemed more about virtue signaling than addressing what really matters to voters. Even among her own party supporters, it’s apparent that harkening back to economic concerns was the route to rousing excitement. The numbers indicate that when Harris campaigned on economic issues, she garnered significant enthusiasm—up to a 25-point boost in Pennsylvania. When she pivoted to focus on Cheney, many in her own base seemed to roll their eyes in unison.
Independents and Republicans alike voiced that inflation and high prices weighed heavily in their decision-making, with nearly every one of them prioritizing these economic issues. For Harris to have wasted precious campaign days clasping hands with Cheney while ignoring the real anxieties of voters is akin to playing a game of poker with her cards showing. Data for Progress hilariously noted that voters increasingly felt Trump could address the economic upheaval more effectively than Harris, despite her attempts to ride on the coattails of a well-known Republican name.
In a twist of irony, the same left-leaning analytics group interpreted the polling as a sign that voters were simply eager for progressive economic policies. Perhaps they missed the memo that even their own conclusions depicted a clear preference among voters for traditional economic messaging over celebrity faux bipartisan showboating. For Harris, the lessons are clear—and they suggest that a partnership with Cheney certainly isn’t the ticket to a second-term vice presidency; rather, it’s merely an exercise in political futility and a case study for campaign strategy disasters.
