In Pennsylvania. Hannah Beier for The New York Times
Once an election is over, hindsight can make the winner’s strategy look perfect and the loser’s seem doomed. As my colleague Jonathan Swan said recently on “The Daily”: “The winning campaign, everything they did was genius, and then the losing campaign are just a bunch of idiots. And the truth is that neither is necessarily true.”
The truth instead tends to be that presidential campaigns make strategic decisions that come with benefits as well as costs. And those decisions aren’t guaranteed to succeed or fail.
In today’s newsletter, I’ll analyze a core strategy that Kamala Harris and Donald Trump have each pursued. After Tuesday, I suspect we will come to see both as crucial, albeit in different ways.
Harris’s caution
On paper, Harris is the underdog. In rich countries around the world, incumbents are doing badly; the ruling parties in Australia, Britain, Germany, Italy and Japan have all recently lost power. In the U.S., President Biden has a 40 percent approval rating, and less than 30 percent of adults are satisfied with the country’s direction.
Nate Cohn, The Times’s chief political analyst, points out that voters appear eager for change and specifically seem skeptical of progressivism. (I recommend his essay on the subject.)
Given this backdrop, Harris has run a strikingly cautious campaign. Game theorists would describe it as a low-variance strategy. She and her aides avoided moves that might have gone very well — and might have gone very poorly.
Can you name her campaign’s central theme, for example? Many of her main messages are vague (“when we fight, we win”), Trump-focused (“in it for himself”) or both (“turn the page”). Asked on television how her presidency would differ from Biden’s, Harris said, “There is not a thing that comes to mind.”
She could have taken a different approach. She could have run on the populist, anti-corporate message that is helping Democratic Senate candidates — or gone in the opposite direction and portrayed herself as a business-friendly centrist. She could have picked an issue, like housing, and signaled that it would be her No. 1 priority, much as health care was for Barack Obama. Instead of offering a bold, thematic message, Harris has announced a series of modest policies.
Her low-variance strategy is also evident in her decision not to explain why she reversed her stances on immigration and fracking. Many voters say they want to know more about Harris — who became a candidate only three months ago — and she hasn’t always filled in the blanks.
The strategy is evident with the Middle East, too. She didn’t pick as her running mate the popular Jewish governor of Pennsylvania partly because many Israel critics opposed him. Her campaign also didn’t invite any Palestinians to speak at the Democratic convention, which may hurt her in Michigan. When possible, Harris has avoided conflict.
All these decisions have benefits, to be clear. Making the Middle East more salient is rarely smart in American politics. Explaining why she changed her mind about the border could have made her look weak. Doing more town halls and interviews to explain her views could have exposed one of Harris’s weaknesses: Although she is an excellent debater, she can struggle in less structured settings.
But if Harris loses, her caution will look problematic. Game theory usually dictates that an underdog should pursue a higher-variance strategy and hope a few risks pay off. Harris has instead bet that the U.S. will not follow the global anti-incumbent pattern — and that our election will be a referendum on Trump more than on Biden and her.
Trump’s gamble
Trump is such an instinctual politician that it can sound strange to analyze his behavior strategically. But his advisers do think strategically, and they have urged him to make some different decisions. Trump has overruled them, as Jonathan Swan has reported.
They have told him the economy is his best issue and the one that matters most to Americans. Focusing on it could help Trump appeal to undecided voters, including those who liked the results of his presidency but don’t like his erratic style. Many of these people — Nikki Haley supporters, for example — are college graduates who will vote, one way or the other.
Economic arguments often bore Trump, however, and he has instead focused on immigration. “That beats out the economy,” he said at a recent rally. It’s part of a closing message focused on grievance, insults and divisive cultural subjects, including his TV ads on trans issues.
This anger can be appealing to Americans who are frustrated with the country’s direction and view the Democratic Party as elite, establishment and too far left. Many younger, male and nonwhite voters fall into this category. But relying on this group comes with a downside: It includes many people who don’t regularly vote.
Trump has made a big bet on turnout — and the idea that he will win by accentuating his persona rather than moderating it.
THE LATEST ELECTION NEWS
Voting
The presidential race looks like a photo finish in swing states, the final set of polls by The New York Times and Siena College found.
The presidential race looks like a photo finish in swing states, the final set of polls by The New York Times and Siena College found.
But despite the deadlock, the figures show some notable shifts, Nate Cohn writes.
Trump has improved his standing in Pennsylvania even as late-deciding voters appear to be breaking for Harris.
White women could determine the election. Nikole Hannah-Jones explores how they have voted over the years.
Republican Campaign
Most politicians don’t criticize American cities, but Trump does. This map shows how he describes the U.S.
Trump’s falsehoods and wild claims have redefined presidential discourse, Peter Baker writes. In his closing arguments, Trump has made misleading statements about Beyoncé, whales and voting.
Trump has promised a new era of power for Christians if he wins.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said Trump would seek to remove fluoride from drinking water.
Democratic Campaign
Kamala Harris, right, and Maya Rudolph. Haiyun Jiang for The New York Times
Harris went on “S.N.L.” She appeared as herself — and Maya Rudolph played her, too.
The Times fact-checked Harris’s closing argument. While she has stuck to the truth, she sometimes omitted context or erred when describing policies and statistics.
Though Biden left the race, his legacy depends on the outcome, Zolan Kanno-Youngs writes.
THE SUNDAY DEBATE
Who are you voting for?
Harris. Harris has promised to continue Biden’s work of making housing affordable, reducing childhood poverty and lowering prescription drug costs, The Philadelphia Inquirer’s editorial board writes: “America deserves much more than an aspiring autocrat who ignores the law, is running to stay out of prison, and doesn’t care about anyone but himself.”
Trump. The Biden-Harris administration has been marked by inflation and war, while Trump’s is remembered for stability and economic growth, The Las Vegas Review-Journal’s editorial board writes: “When we weigh the policy results of Mr. Trump’s four years in office against those of Ms. Harris and Mr. Biden, the contrast becomes difficult to ignore.”