On Wednesday afternoon, Kamala Harris stood outside the vice-presidential residence in Washington DC and delivered a brief but scathing attack on her Republican presidential opponent. Describing Donald Trump as “increasingly unhinged and unstable,” she referenced critical remarks made by John Kelly, Trump’s former White House Chief of Staff, in a New York Times interview. Kelly had reportedly called Trump a “fascist” who had expressed admiration for Hitler.
Harris accused her rival of seeking “unchecked power” and boldly labeled him a “fascist” during a CNN Town Hall. The Trump campaign swiftly dismissed her claims as lies, with spokesman Steven Cheung suggesting that she was desperate and her campaign was in disarray.
As the 2024 presidential race heated up, Harris took a more negative approach towards Trump, diverging from her earlier optimistic messaging. While she had previously warned of the dangers of a Trump presidency, she now amplified Kelly’s portrayal of Trump as authoritarian.
Harris’s strategic shift aimed to appeal to independent voters and moderate Republicans in battleground states where the race was tight. Her goal was to build a broad coalition and attract disaffected Republicans who were hesitant to support Trump again.
Despite efforts to highlight Kelly’s comments and sway voters, some expressed skepticism about the impact of new allegations against Trump. Republican strategist Denise Grace Gitsham believed that voters who disliked Trump’s personality were already decided, while those focused on policies might lean towards the candidate they felt performed better while in office.
Both Harris and Trump intensified their attacks in the final days of the campaign, with Harris warning of dire consequences under a Trump presidency and Trump labeling Harris as “lazy” and “stupid.” Their rhetoric reflected the high stakes of the election and the polarizing nature of American politics.
Harris’s strategic emphasis on winning over anti-Trump Republicans and independents carried risks, as Democratic strategist Matt Bennett noted. The allocation of resources and candidate’s time was crucial, and the outcome of the election would determine the success of Harris’s approach.
As the election day approached, the effectiveness of Harris’s strategy remained uncertain. Whether anti-Trump sentiment would propel her to victory or lead to second-guessing depended on the voters’ response. Reuters Los que están fuera del UK pueden registrarse aqui.