The Democratic National Convention in Chicago was a huge success, filled with stars, cheers, unity and excitement.
But now begins a much tougher task for Kamala Harris, as she battles through what is likely to be a tough but tense 72 days of the election to be elected the 47th president of the United States on November 5. And unlike last week, the outcome of the election is no longer in her control.
Still, her (and her party's) accomplishments should not be underestimated. Having emerged as the Democratic nominee on July 21 when President Joe Biden dropped out of the race, and having suffered low public approval ratings throughout her three-and-a-half years as vice president, Harris has gone from underdog to front-runner in just a month.
She is leading Donald Trump in national polls and in the potentially decisive states of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, but her lead is too small to inspire confidence unless new polls after the Democratic National Convention show a dramatic shift.
That's smaller than the lead Hillary Clinton held at the same stage of the 2016 campaign, when she lost to Donald Trump. Harris' lead has room to grow, but it's still likely to be a close race.
At last week's convention, she and her party had to achieve three main tasks.
First, they had to avoid the discord over Harris' candidacy, and more specifically the Biden administration's biggest foreign policy nightmare: the Gaza war. They had to begin to articulate what Harris and the party stand for on domestic and foreign policy. And above all, they had to show that Harris and her running mate, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, were a credible team to lead the White House for the next four years.
On the first issue, the conference was more successful than most observers had expected a month ago: There were some protests about Gaza, but they were not headline-grabbing and there were no obvious signs of division within the party.
While the unpredictable situation in the Middle East could still pose headaches for Harris ahead of the election, her comments that the “scale of human suffering” in the conflict is “heartbreaking” struck the right tone.
Regarding the second issue, presidential voters rarely base their decisions on specific policy stances: for most people, it is too technical, abstract, and perhaps biased, so some cannot understand the policy stance and others do not believe in it.
What is perhaps important is what impression such a position gives about the candidates' fundamental attitudes and the seeming consistency of their thinking.
While many of the proposals, assessed this way, were half-baked at best, the team believes that the Harris-Waltz administration's main concern is
Lowering the cost of living for ordinary people, curbing the excessive power of large quasi-monopoly corporations, and restoring fundamental freedoms, especially the right to abortion.
While no one believes Trump has a magic trick, and many are skeptical that he can achieve much on the issue of illegal immigration, his greatest hope on the issue of border security would be to neutralize it and eliminate any perceived advantage he may have.
Foreign affairs are famously a mere sideshow in American elections, and when I was at The Economist, we used to lament every four years how little time and attention was paid to America's outsized global role.
This year will likely be much the same in terms of specific policy stances and specific countries, but the role foreign affairs will play in defining the character of the opponents is likely to be unusual, with voters' perceptions of character and behavior likely to be decisive.
Through their words and performances over the past month, Kamala Harris and Tim Walz have succeeded in presenting themselves as positive, optimistic and, in American terms, “normal” — all important attributes in an election.
Their message that Donald Trump and his running mate J.D. Vance are “crazy,” “unserious,” deeply negative and dangerous in many ways has proven powerful and persuasive.
By focusing on threats to reproductive rights, individual liberties, and democracy itself, Democrats have successfully seized control of a language usually reserved for Republicans: “freedom.”
This should provide a good foundation for the next seven hard-fought weeks, but it has yet to demonstrate clearly and convincingly that the Harris/Waltz team is likely to provide strong leadership and credibility in the face of the crises that inevitably come with every administration.
In her acceptance speech, Harris sought to address the issue by saying she would take a tough stance against China and Russia, and reminding the audience of Trump's friendship with brutal dictators like North Korea's Kim Jong Un.
In doing so, she was not trying to take part in any debates on foreign affairs, but to demonstrate that she would be a strong, resolute leader when she sat behind the President's official desk. The desk is known as the “Resolute Desk” not because its occupants necessarily deserve that moniker, but because it was built in 1880 from the timbers of the Royal Navy ship, HMS Resolute.
But using strong, even firm, words is not enough. Harris must also appear strong and firm when under daily attack from the Trump campaign, when questioned by journalists, and especially in the only in-person televised debate the two sides have agreed to hold on September 10 on ABC.
If I were forced to bet right now on who will win on November 5th, I would certainly bet on Kamala Harris and Tim Walz, voting for freedom, normalcy, and positivity, but I don't want to take too much risk on that outcome. The race is expected to be close and tense, with plenty of room for new upsets and upheavals along the way.
Bill Emmott, former editor of The Economist, is currently chairman of the British Japan Institute, the International Institute for Strategic Studies and the Institute for International Trade.
This article, previously published on his Substack, Bill Emmott’s Global View, is the English translation of an article originally published in Italian in La Stampa on August 25th, and is republished here with permission.
