Staff Reports
Kamala Harris appears to have found herself in quite the pickle, and it’s not just because of her spotty track record as Vice President. In a desperate push to energize her flagging campaign, she’s resorted to a theatrical comparison, labeling Donald Trump as “literally Hitler.” This could be considered the Democrats’ latest “October surprise,” albeit one that reeks of desperation and a complete lack of originality. Rather than presenting real policies or coherent arguments, Harris and her party are opting for antiquated scare tactics that are bordering on ludicrous.
It’s ironic that in a bid to energize voters, the Democrats have resorted to invoking one of history’s most reviled figures, revealing just how far they are willing to go to mischaracterize their opponents. With this line of attack, which is essentially a gift to Trump’s campaign, the left has shown its true colors. Harris’s messaging hinges on an absurd premise—that opposing her party’s policies equates to fascism. The implications of such a strategy raise eyebrows, especially when it comes to independent and undecided voters, who are likely more interested in real solutions than in slinging mud.
VOTERS REJECT A DANGEROUS “HITLER” PLOY BY KAMALA pic.twitter.com/8XsC9ppSXm
— gutsyPetr70 (@Petr70G) October 25, 2024
Recent discussions among undecided voters in key battleground states, such as Pennsylvania, highlight the backlash against this kind of hyperbolic politics. It seems that many voters find the continual comparison of Trump to Hitler not just old hat, but fundamentally counterproductive. Those genuine opinions emerged during a recent panel discussion moderated by Mark Halperin, where one voter pointed out that the excessive hyperbole is pushing them away from the Democrats rather than drawing them in. Such sentiments attest to the belief that voters are tired of the same tired tropes and wish for a more substantive discourse that addresses their pressing concerns.
The underlying reality is that the Democrats seem trapped in a spiral of their own making, forced to defend an unpopular candidate and recycle tired attacks that lack impact. Instead of addressing the economic struggles facing Americans today, Harris falls back on incendiary rhetoric, proving just how out of touch her campaign is with the electorate. The faces of the undecided voters when posed with the prospect of hearing more “Hitler” references from Harris tell a powerful story: it is an unmistakable look of discomfort, signaling that this line of attack simply isn’t resonating with those they need the most.
In the increasingly competitive political landscape leading to the election, Harris’s insistence on using such drastic rhetorical devices could very well backfire. It’s clear that voters are looking for authentic leadership and solutions rather than sensationalism and fear-mongering. While Kamala’s attempts to villainize Trump may have entertained some within the Democrat base, they fall flat among those who are actually deciding the outcome of elections. The “Hail Hitler” pass is unlikely to chart a successful course for her campaign as voters remain focused on the issues that truly matter to them, like jobs, inflation, and national security. Harris might want to reconsider her strategy before it goes down in political history as another example of how not to campaign.
