Kamala Harris’ Strategy Criticized Post-Election: Poll Analysis in Swing States

The decision of Kamala Harris, the Democrat’s presidential nominee, to campaign with former Republican Representative Liz Cheney has been scrutinized following recent polling results in Pennsylvania and Michigan. The polls, conducted by Data for Progress in partnership with the Progressive Change Institute, were revealed during the analysis of Harris’ electoral strategy in these pivotal swing states.

According to the survey findings, Harris’s campaign decision to generate media attention through an alliance with Cheney, rather than concentrating on economic issues, may have cost her support among key voters. The analysis suggests that a focus on populist economic messaging would have potentially increased enthusiasm for her candidacy in both Pennsylvania and Michigan.

The surveys highlight that voters in both states primarily considered economic factors, particularly inflation and high prices, when casting their votes. In this context, former President Donald Trump was perceived as more likely to address these pressing economic issues. However, the findings also reveal an interesting paradox: while Trump’s voters expect him to tackle billionaire taxation and corporate price gouging, they believe he is more attuned to these concerns than Harris, despite her economic agenda being relatively popular.

Notably, 53% of voters in Pennsylvania and 55% in Michigan believed Harris was more committed to confronting corporations over unfair practices compared to Trump, yet they voted for Trump as the «change candidate.» This discrepancy points to a communication gap in Harris’s campaign.

Further insights from the polls show that independent voters had a lukewarm reaction to Harris’s decision to campaign with Liz Cheney. In Pennsylvania, only 21% of independents felt more enthusiastic about Harris after her joint campaign with Cheney, while 28% felt less enthusiastic, resulting in a net negative impact among these voters. Similarly, in Michigan, 23% of independents were more enthusiastic, contrasted by 30% who were less so.

The sentiment among independents in both states, however, was largely indifferent; a significant proportion indicated that Harris’s partnership with Cheney did not influence their enthusiasm at all. This underscores the limited strategic advantage gained from this particular alliance.

The Harris campaign’s rationale for partnering with Cheney stemmed from Cheney’s prominent role in opposing Donald Trump, particularly after her tenure on the committee investigating the January 6 Capitol riots. Despite the intended broadening of appeal, the strategy had marginal effect in swaying independents or moderates, as indicated by post-election analysis.

Harris’s campaign, while promoting an economic agenda that polls show was popular, struggled to effectively communicate its benefits over Trump’s perceived economic competence. This contributed to Trump ultimately securing election victories in both Michigan and Pennsylvania, as reported by The New York Times, with Trump winning Michigan by approximately 1.4 points and Pennsylvania by about 1.7 points.