I've enjoyed subscribing to Matthew Yglesias' substack, because he talks about things from a different perspective, even if he can get seriously wedded to his priors. Today is a good example of that.
Some of it is the incessant need any writer needs to hedge their bets after 2016. Harris pretty clearly has a measurable lead in the polls, but the polls were off by enough in 2016 and 2020 to make people legitimately skittish about making predictions about November. Of course, there is the second caveat which is that Democrats have been more robust in turning out their voters, especially in off-year elections. If Trump remains unpopular - and I think the debate will drop him down a bit more - then there will simply be some of the old Trumpist coalition who sit this one out.
Where Yglesias really falls into his own navel is in advancing the typical fallacy of "If the candidate does everything I suggest, they will be doing better." This is a weird take, because much of the column if him admitting that Harris has pretty much nailed the first month of her campaign. She's sewed up the party's support; she's raised a boatload of money and spent it well; she's expanded the battleground map; she's seemingly won the war over defining herself and her opponent.
The primary data point that he uses to argue that she's not doing well enough is betting markets. His argument is that bettors are smarter with their money, which is news to anyone who's been to Vegas. What's more, those betting markets are reflecting the fact that the convention and debates haven't happened yet. What if Harris absolutely crashes in her debate? If you had her as 70% odds to win the election, you might take a bath. Much like the "Likely Voter" screens in polling, the closer you get to the election, the more solidified predictions will become.
Finally, he argues that Harris is not arguing for the suite of policies that he wants, so she must be running a bad campaign. His current hobbyhorse is reducing the deficit, which isn't a terrible policy idea, but is not great politics in this moment.
I warned that the press would treat Harris' policy proposals differently than Trump's, and that's largely been true. However, we've seen quite a few takes like Josh Barro or Jon Chait, who looked at the pre-speech version of her plan and said it was bad policy but likely good politics. Then the speech came out, it wasn't "price controls" but anti-monopoly, they left the pieces up, but at least they conceded that her politics were smart in taking on corporate greed.
The reality is that every election is about vibes. If you want you can call them fundamentals, but really they are about how the Mushy Middle sees the current state of things and whether they blame the candidate who most represents the status quo. Trump, in many ways, is running as the incumbent - at least from a vibes point of view. Harris has framed her campaign as a forward looking effort to improve people's lives. Yglesias concedes this point - but this is really the whole shebang.
Only political junkies really care about the policy white papers. When you look at a candidate, the most important thing to look at is principles. What do they care about and who do they care for? We know the answer when it comes to Trump: he care about himself and the people who genuflect before him. Harris and the Democrats will spend this week hammering the message about how they care about middle class families. That's the way to win elections.
No comments:
Post a Comment