Harris on the Ascent
2024 General Election Situational Briefing - Early August
With most election models and betting markets now positioning Vice President Kamala Harris as the frontrunner in the presidential race, it's worth acknowledging the significant shift in momentum since the last few weeks of the Biden campaign. As much as this is evidence of her strengths as a candidate, it is also a testament to the volatility that currently permeates the American political environment. The second in the series, this update examines the implications of Kamala Harris’s selection of Tim Walz as her vice presidential candidate and takes a look at where both campaigns are right now and where they could go in the future.
Current Topline Projection
Currently, I predict that Kamala Harris will win the presidential race by a narrow margin of 276 to 262 electoral college votes. She has gained considerably in Rust Belt states, with strong, consistent polling in Michigan pulling the state into the likely Democratic grouping, which is an indicator of the strength of Harris's campaign. She is also making important strides in the Sun Belt, polling positively in Nevada and Arizona and undoing Donald Trump's strength in those states. Nate Silver's polling average has shown an 11.1% shift in Arizona towards the Democrats over this month, indicating the newfound appeal of the Harris-Walz ticket in both the Rust Belt and the Sun Belt. To regain momentum, Trump’s strategy will probably aim to re-secure the Sun Belt states back first before trying to re-emerge in the Rust Belt. On the other hand, Harris, already gaining heavily in Arizona, may make a play for Georgia and North Carolina next, consolidating her lead by tapping into the opportunities in these states.
Where are we now?
The next major milestone for this race will be the Democratic National Convention, starting August 19th. Until then, the Harris campaign has centered its approach on holding a large series of rallies and public appearances that, unlike before, are bringing crowds in, highlighting the wind in her sails. By contrast, Trump has kept his schedule mostly empty and not announced many rallies before the convention, an effective concession that his campaign is probably not going to try to alter the current narrative over the next two weeks.
The Republican weakness, as compared to before, is also evident in their failure to leverage their post-Biden dropout strength to force a re-negotiation of the debate schedule. This week, Trump finally conceded to the pre-scheduled ABC News debate on September 10th, which he had previously tried to avoid. Harris is continuing to reject Trump’s attempt to schedule a Fox News debate before then, and Trump has seemingly not set any consequences for her for doing so.
Overall, Harris’s campaign is making substantial strides, with a combination of effective rallying and strategic debate positioning, while Trump’s campaign seems to be grappling with strategic challenges. This is visible in Harris’s substantial gains on many important race metrics in almost every swing state.
Tim Walz as Harris’s Vice Presidential Candidate
In my previous update, I anticipated the potential finalists for the position, mentioning Governors Josh Shapiro (Pennsylvania) and Tim Walz (Minnesota), along with Senator Mark Kelly (Arizona). I speculated that Mark Kelly might be ruled out because Democrats might prefer a Governor to complement Harris's limited executive experience. I also leaned against Shapiro due to controversies around his stance on student protests and a recent sexual harassment settlement involving his top aide. Whether or not Harris's campaign made its decision on these metrics, Tim Walz was selected by Harris on Tuesday morning as her VP candidate, as I had anticipated.
Tim Walz brings several key assets to the ticket. Above all, he is an excellent public speaker and represents the Democratic attempt to match Donald Trump’s charisma. This allows him to take far greater rhetorical risks than Harris -- the same attack, which could feel overwrought and negative from Harris, comes across as biting and almost jovial from Walz. His biography complements the ticket, and the Harris-Walz team is already campaigning on the idea of sending two children from middle-class households to the White House. Americans hold positive regard for teachers, football coaches, and soldiers, and Walz hits all three professional realms (although his military service has attracted some controversy, as will be discussed momentarily). It is clear that if Harris’s goal was to project a positive and joyful energy for the ticket, Walz was a good pick. He has already proven his worth in rallies, where he has entertained crowds and created momentum for future appearances.
Republicans have already launched many attacks against Walz, with varying degrees of success. While most bounced off him, two ended up sticking, and one could pose a problem for the Harris-Walz ticket going forward. At first, the strongest attack the Republicans seemed to have had was that Tim Walz was the Minnesota Governor during the Minneapolis riots in 2020 in the aftermath of the murder of George Floyd. The goal was to paint Harris and Walz as the patrons of civil disorder, as opposed to Trump and Vance projecting safety and security. This attack, however, somewhat fell apart when the Harris campaign unearthed audio of Trump, on a call with many governors, praising Walz’s response to the riots and urging others to follow his lead. While many Republicans are still hanging on to this attack, which could still hurt the Harris-Walz ticket, Trump’s ability to reference this is diminished.
The other controversy that could end up more problematic for Walz involves the ever-growing questions surrounding his military service (he was in the Army National Guard from 1981-2005, 24 years). Summed up, it appears that Walz may have played fast-and-loose with how he portrayed his military service and allowed others to do so, which opens him up to claims of stolen valor. Some examples include:
Tim Walz has claimed on multiple occasions to be a “retired Command Sergeant Major.” While he held the position in the Minnesota National Guard, the position requires a certain amount of time and training before one can formally collect the benefits for having served in that role. Walz did not serve in that position for the required time period, and thus, many veterans consider it inappropriate for him to have claimed that he is a “retired Command Sergeant Major.” The Harris campaign ended up having to edit this claim on his bio on the campaign website, rewording his page to write that Walz’s service in the National Gaurd entailed him “rising to the rank of Command Sergeant Major.”
Tim Walz has never served in a combat zone, yet has both alluded to it before and let others suggest it of him. What is true is that, in his final years of military service, he was stationed in Italy, deployed in support of “Operation Enduring Freedom” (the name for all actions taken in support of the War on Terror outside Iraq, but heavily associated with US actions in Afghanistan). From this, Walz has claimed to be an “Enduring Freedom Veteran for John Kerry” (something that many feel implies service in Afghanistan itself), which has stirred controversy now. He has also been labeled on C-SPAN, when he was a US representative, as an “Afghanistan War Veteran,” which he was not, which should have been corrected by his congressional office. Arguably, the most egregious example was when, in 2018, he argued for greater gun control by saying, “We can make sure those weapons of war, that I carried in war, are only carried in war.”
There are also broader questions surrounding the timeline and nature of his exit from the National Guard due to the fact his unit was deployed to Iraq not too long after his departure. During this specific tour, two members of the unit were killed by IEDs in Iraq. Republicans claim that he knew about the deployment and chose to leave anyways, implying a level of cowardice or non-responsibility towards his men; the mother of one of those soldiers claimed Walz took the “coward’s way out.” Democrats claim that Walz had already planned to run for Congress before that time, had an already-expiring service contract at that time, and had every right not to renew his military contract after 24 years of service.
This line of attack seems to be sticking, with Democrats scrambling to make revisions on campaign websites and clarifications that mainly concede to the criticisms. As a countermeasure, Democrats have accused the Republicans of “Swiftboating” Walz, alluding to a campaign by the infamous “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” group in 2004 that put out a series of factually dubious yet incredibly stinging attacks on John Kerry’s military service. It appears that the Democrats' best hope is to paint this as a repeat of 2004 until, hopefully, the public moves on. However, given that Trump’s VP pick, JD Vance, did serve in a combat zone (Al-Anbar, Iraq, in late 2005), albeit as a video journalist and served in the military for a shorter period of time, this attack may likely not go away easily.
Where do we go from here?
Democrats currently have momentum and a lead, but unlike 2020, this election isn't just a "lesser of two evils" choice for many voters. Favorability ratings for both candidates exceed their polling numbers, indicating that some people who like Harris plan to vote for Trump, and vice versa. The 2020 narrative of voting to keep the other candidate out of power isn't holding up this time. To see where the candidates are now, it may be helpful to analyze both candidates to highlight their strengths and weaknesses.
Kamala Harris
Strengths
Harris’s current advantage lies mainly in her momentum. These last two weeks have seen her rise from being the slight underdog to becoming the slight favorite on almost all polling averages, betting markets, and modeling forecasts. The factors that are powering this shift are what comprise her key strengths going forward. Her party has united behind her almost completely, with endorsements for the ticket ranging from Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Occasio Cortez on the party’s left to Joe Manchin on the party’s right. This is also reflected in the consolidation seen in polling among Democrats, with self-described Democrats willing to vote for Trump being under 4% in multiple polls, something that is incredibly rare and hasn’t been seen since Obama’s campaign in 2008. This number was hovering around 8-9% in the last few weeks of the Biden campaign.
Building off this momentum, Harris has unleashed a strong ground game that has allowed her campaign to be omnipresent at all times. The number of field offices she has across the swing states far exceeds that of Trump; at the same time, Trump is closing field offices and outsourcing them to aligned PACs. To be clear, the ramifications of this will be felt much more down-ballot, as these PACs will support Trump but cannot support down-ballot Republicans due to campaign rules. The loss of fundraising momentum for the Trump campaign has led to the cost being shifted to PACs, away from the campaign, and this is definitely something that will help the Harris-Walz ticket.
Her funding advantage can also be seen in advertisement spending across swing states. Trump has clearly concentrated his ad buys in states that he believes could be tipping points. At the current moment, both campaigns have many advertising reservations in Pennsylvania and Georgia; the Trump campaign assumes that if he can win both, he can stop Harris from winning the prize, an assessment which is not entirely wrong given the number of votes each state has. The current amount of advertisement reservations for September-November in those states are as follows:
Pennsylvania: Trump-Vance campaign and associated PACs: $50.5 million; Harris-Walz campaign and associated PACs: $38.3 million
Georgia: Trump-Vance campaign and associated PACs: $19.4 million; Harris-Walz campaign and associated PACs: $25.1 million
So why am I discussing this topic as among Harris’s strengths? Because when one looks at the other swing states, a fuller picture emerges:
Michigan: Harris-Walz campaign and associated PACs: $32.3 million; Trump-Vance campaign and associated PACs: $1.8 million
Arizona: Harris-Walz campaign and associated PACs: $21.3 million; Trump-Vance campaign and associated PACs: $1.1 million
Wisconsin: Harris-Walz campaign and associated PACs: $16.6 million; Trump-Vance campaign and associated PACs: $1.3 million
Nevada: Harris-Walz campaign and associated PACs: $5.5 million; Trump-Vance campaign and associated PACs: $0
The fundraising advantage that Democrats have acquired has allowed them to make a full-front attack on all swing states, while the Trump campaign’s relative lack of funds has forced him to make concentrated bids in two states in regard to advertising. Furthermore, Harris’s ground game is bolstered by the fact she has strong connections with popular surrogates on the ground, especially in the Rust Belt. Popular governors Josh Shapiro (Pennsylvania) and Gretchen Whitmer (Michigan) have started actively campaigning for Harris, which allows her to focus her efforts on the more difficult Sun Belt states.
Her final strength right now is the fact that Republicans are attacking her in ways that do not seem to be sticking. From the start, a lot of energy was spent insinuating that Harris “perpetrated a coup” against Biden, that she is a “DEI hire” whose race has always masked the fact she is incompetent and unintelligent, and that she is not a family-focused person. All of these attacks seem to have bounced off her, with reputable polling from Siena College finding that 65% of voters, including 29% of Republicans, find her to be “intelligent” (56% of voters in the same poll said Trump was “intelligent”). Focus groups and other polling have found that the other attacks also are not received that favorably by the public, which is very much to Harris’s advantage as these attacks have yet to die down.
Weaknesses
Harris has only run one competitive race against a Republican in her life: the 2010 race for California Attorney General. It has been 14 years since that race, and there are some signs that betray issues that candidates who have had more experience in this specific field would avoid. A big one remains her continued unwillingness to talk to the media. Apart from the simple issue of shielding oneself from such scrutiny, thereby opening her up to questions about why that is the case, I predict there may be greater issues in the future if this isn’t rectified from her end soon.
It is no secret that many of the biggest media houses in this country have a Democratic tilt to them; that being said, the US non-conservative media is still an actor in its own rights with independent interests. Chief among them is access to prominent figures: under both Barack Obama and Donald Trump, the media had very easy access to the President, which naturally is useful for producing exclusive and interesting content. Under Biden, that easy access has been halted, as the Biden team worried that a media eager for stories about Biden’s family situation and seemingly declining mental acuity would not serve the White House’s interests. If Harris cannot show a commitment to the media that she will change this trend, consequences may start emerging. In the same vein that saw the media platform stories that softly argued that Biden should drop out after the debate, so too, may voters start seeing stories questioning why Harris refuses to talk to the media. The campaign has promised an interview by the end of the month, but I suspect that if Harris doesn’t show further commitment, this could become a problem for the campaign.
Another weakness for Harris is that she continues to remain undefined on issues. In her defense, because Democrats often feel like they have to manage a larger and less loyal coalition than the Republicans, Democratic presidential candidates usually don’t nail down on specifics regarding issues until post-convention when a platform is adopted, as crucial negotiations happen over that document. That being said, usually, the positions a candidate had during a primary and past administration give a good indicator, but Harris’s brief primary campaign in 2020 gives us little indication of where she stands now, and the White House has not given voters much of an indication of what she was responsible for in the administration. Put simply, voters don’t know exactly where she stands.
That being said, I will concede that may not necessarily be a bad thing. It has been noted in polling over the last couple of years that “Generic Democrat” almost always outperforms specific candidates, and Harris is now polling very close to the “Generic Democrat” level. There may be an unconventional strategy at play here, keeping her undefined. Furthermore, 53% of voters in the Siena poll said “having a clear vision for the country” describes Kamala Harris well as opposed to 44% who disagreed; the numbers for Trump on this same metric were 60% well/39% not well. While her numbers are lower than Trump’s, 53% is not a terrible number.
Opportunities
The next couple of weeks present two events that could serve as potential opportunities for the Harris campaign to bolster its standing. The biggest and most obvious one is the Democratic National Convention. The convention presents a strong opportunity for Democrats to show party unity and what they can bring to the country going forward. Interestingly, this campaign has been defined by fast thinking: just as Walz was elevated for VP from his synthesizing of the “Republicans are weird” attack line, Governor Wes Moore of Maryland has also been elevated in plans surrounding the DNC. Responding to Harris’s original rally in Philidelphia where Tim Walz was unveiled as Harris’s VP, he urged Democrats to center their convention on two themes that are more associated with Republicans: patriotism and freedom. It appears that, from reports, the Democrats are planning on following through on his advice. I’d argue that something that could bring many benefits to the party is yielding the speaking platforms to the various popular Democratic governors across the country, from Wes Moore to Josh Shapiro to Gretchen Whitmer to others like Roy Cooper (North Carolina), Andy Beshear (Kentucky), Ned Lamont (Connecticut), and Maura Healey (Massachusetts) who all have very high in-state approval ratings that often cross party-lines. This could also highlight the fact that all Democratic governors are united behind the Harris-Walz ticket, as opposed to the Republican side, where several governors are in on-and-off spats with Donald Trump, most notably Governor Brian Kemp of Georgia.
Another event that, while smaller, also has the potential to benefit the Harris campaign is the rumored unveiling on Thursday of the administration’s results regarding their Medicare negotiations for the price of 10 prescription drugs. This could be important because voters have consistently raised the issues of Medicare and Medicaid as being very important for them, but the Harris campaign has yet to unveil talking points on these issues. While this is perplexing for now, as this issue almost always is to the Democrats’ advantage, many suspect she has been waiting for these results to be announced.
One final thing to mention is that being perceived as intelligent and having an independent positive vision among voters is a very useful advantage. It allows Harris to evade having a defined policy position that the public may expect more urgently if they get the perception that Harris is simply running an anti-Trump campaign and is not smart enough for the job.
Threats
I’d argue that the main threat to her momentum right now, considering that the Trump campaign is not fighting hard to undercut it, with the exception of attacking Walz, is party disunity. The party unity that she commands is impressive but also quite fragile. One small moment at her rally in Michigan, where pro-Palestinian hecklers tried to disrupt her speech, drew a very sharp response from her, which many Democrats felt was excessively harsh. Harris had to workshop a better line for when the same thing occurred in Arizona. Harris also had to balance the fact she is a candidate in her own right with the fact she is a member of an active administration, with her ability to negotiate with these protestors limited by the fact she cannot contradict administration policy on such a tenuous issue. The relevance of the issue is not the problem, as very few voters say that the conflict in Gaza is a top priority for them. Rather, the danger exists that a party divided amongst itself can very quickly lead to circumstances that devolve into perceptions of incompetence and ineptness.
Apart from that, as mentioned before, continued lack of interaction with the media could catch up with her at some point. This could become compounded by a poor debate performance, which can happen to any candidate, and suddenly, one could see a media presentation similar to what we saw in the aftermath of the Biden debate. It’s also unclear from polling so far what effect the Walz pick may have on the public. From the limited numbers we have so far, it's positive, but we don’t have many reliable polls from after the attacks around his service record intensified, so it’s hard to discern what the effect of that could be.
Donald Trump
Strengths
While momentum is currently against Trump, I would definitely not count him out yet. Trump has the more popular opinion on issues that are more important to voters this cycle. Democrats are constantly trying to play catch-up with the Republicans on issues like crime and the border, abandoning their more liberal take that had defined the party the last election cycle. Apart from abortion and what I call the “Holy Trinity of the Safety Net” (Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid), Republicans are trusted more on the issues that voters rank highly. Polls and focus groups also show that voters are very receptive to Republican anti-Harris messaging on issues of the border and the economy.
Vance has also steadied himself into a new equilibrium, with the campaign recognizing his strengths and weaknesses. He now is utilized in settings that are to his advantage: small crowds with dedicated themes (such as talking to factory workers at a midwestern factory or podcasters about his biography) or simply on social media, where his lack of charisma doesn’t present an issue. I expect that most of the damage that he has presented to the ticket has already occurred, and now that he’s found his flow, he may turn into an asset, although it’s too early to tell if he can undo the boost that he compounded in Harris’s momentum
Fundamentally, this race should favor Trump. A pattern where the governing party acts as if it were not the incumbent is a strategy that often doesn’t work (see India 2024 for the latest case study). Voters often expect the governing party to demonstrate what parts of its current agenda are working for them, which Harris has failed to do so far and will continue to find difficult, given how unpopular Biden is.
A factor I haven’t discussed, and which may show up later in polling, is the fact that given the status of the races right now, it is looking very unlikely that Republicans will hold the House, and due to questionable candidate selection, Republicans are only moderate favorites in the Senate. Given many voters in this country see divided government as a way to maintain moderation—if the pendulum keeps swinging towards Democrats, voters may feel a vote for Trump is a way to ensure balance in the government.
Something that should also be highlighted for the “Kamala is gaining” narrative: Trump is not losing vote share in polls. While it is not a good sign that unpersuaded voters are breaking more and more for Kamala, those who were with Trump before are still with him. This remains a strength, as it appears that he does not have to worry too much about having to counter Harris’s persuasions to his own base.
Weaknesses
One major weakness has been the Republican ground game, which is a problem derived from two larger issues: party unity and depth chart. The Republican Party does not seem united and organized for this race.
One indication of this issue is that Trump has no reliable and popular surrogates in swing states. Trump recently has been feuding on and off with the popular Republican governor of Georgia, Brian Kemp, due to the fact that his wife refuses to endorse Trump. While Kemp has consistently maintained that he endorses Trump and that he is all-in on defeating Harris, Trump has continued to attack him, and the Georgia Republican political machine is showing signs of discontent, even as Kemp urges Republicans to rally against Harris. Out in the West, the situation is not much better. Governor Joe Lombardo of Nevada endorsed Trump in the earlier part of the year but remains reluctant to jeopardize his high approval rating. Lombardo is also trying to boost the Republican candidate for the US Senate from Nevada, who is struggling and may remain worried that the bipartisan appeal he brings could get eroded if Trump steps in.
Looking to the South, Arizona could have been a better opportunity for Trump, given that the incumbent Democratic governor is not very popular. In this state, the top surrogate should be the Republican candidate for the US Senate race this year. However, Kari Lake won the primary, and her hardline stances and fringe views on a number of topics have made the Senate race uncompetitive, heavily favoring Democrat Ruben Gallego, who is now expected to win the seat Kyrsten Sinema is vacating. So, while Lake is a loyal surrogate for Trump in Arizona, given her unpopularity, this may be hurting rather than helping Trump. Added to the already-mentioned issues with field offices and advertisement budgeting, the Harris campaign could sense an opportunity here.
Furthermore, another less quantifiable problem seems to be emerging: the campaign seems less energized than before. At the same time that Harris’s unwillingness to talk to the press is being noticed, so too is the fact that it seems Trump is just not campaigning and is leaving it mainly to Vance and surrogates. Most of last week was spent at his resort in Florida, and the constant rallies that defined his 2016 and 2020 campaigns now seem fewer and farther between than before. This is especially a problem for Republicans because put frankly, Trump remains more popular than any person who is actively willing to stump for him. This means, in practice, that it really is he who needs to lead from the front and campaign aggressively, something which is not as necessarily true for the Democrats. This noticeable slowdown in campaigning has even led to emerging questions about his old age and his energy levels, not unlike the ones he raised for Biden in 2020. While these attacks probably hold less merit currently than the ones lobbed in 2020, it’s important he gets ahead of these sentiments as an implicit part of the Harris campaign’s slogan of “We’re not going back” is a promise of a future without older politicians.
As mentioned before, Trump has effectively yielded to Harris on the framework of the first debate, letting Harris set the time, place, and network and offering no consequences for her not agreeing to his proposed FOX debate because he simply doesn’t have the negotiating leverage yet to do so. From his rally schedule, it seems like Trump is counting on a self-enforced error from Harris, or a debate, to shift the energy in this campaign.
Opportunities
The time immediately prior to the DNC convention provides an excellent opportunity for Trump to take a breather and re-evaluate his current approach, allowing for pivots if need be. If such an opportunity is taken and capitalized upon, there are several places where a different or modified approach may be of service to the campaign
Firstly, the campaign needs better message discipline. Poll after poll and focus group after focus group have shown that Harris appears vulnerable to attacks on immigration and the cost of living. Less so, but still an effective platform for attack, are her stances on social issues; the obvious caveat is that making this election revolve around social issues is a risk for Republicans because such elections rarely favor them. Concentrating on these points specifically may allow for a more forward-leaning strategy.
Secondly, Trump needs to work with surrogates and consolidate the Republican ground game. Brian Kemp could be enthusiastically brought on board, though his machine will need proof that their leader isn’t being humiliated but rather is being bolstered by Trump. Coordination with Governor Joe Lombardo of Nevada could be advantageous, especially if he can be rolled out on the campaign trail in Arizona. Michigan’s US Senate Republican candidate, Mike Rogers, is polling unusually well compared to his struggling counterparts in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania-- there may be merit to Trump trying to work with him to bolster Republican standing across the board. The point is that the Democrats have built a united front dedicated to pushing their party over the finish line in the House, Senate, and Presidency. While there are many more issues with suboptimal candidate selection on the Republican side, which prevents a perfect mirror image of what the Democrats have, the party still feels disjointed, and Trump’s campaign should try to fix that.
Thirdly, Trump needs to get back on the campaign trail and populate his rally schedule, as it could help bring back momentum and energy to the Trump campaign. Rallies are a format that showcases Trump at his strongest: charismatic and energetic, and someone who takes energy from the people around him and returns it. His current strategies, from interviews with journalists and online streamers to press conferences, are not bad in isolation, but a candidate who resorts to them (like Biden did in 2020) really does need an active army of surrogates campaigning on their behalf in order to deliver on the dual fronts of content and charisma. The only person really doing so for Trump right now is Vance, and already, Republicans have a massive deficit in the ground game.
Threats
If the main opportunities lie in changing and adapting certain strategies, the main threat continues to be a headstrong reluctance to change prior ways of doing things Messaging discipline for Republicans and Trump is crucial because there is a lot of messaging that seems to be inefficient at best and counterproductive at worse that is currently being targeted towards Harris. Trump and certain Republicans keep bringing up messages that Harris is an illegitimate candidate who launched a coup against Biden, or that Harris is a “DEI” candidate who is not qualified for the job and only gets ahead due to race, or that Harris is not a family-focused person. These attacks do not seem to work and, if anything, may endear voters to Harris, as recent polls and focus groups have shown.
While I did mention in the “opportunities section” that attacks on Harris’s perceived excessive social liberalism are more effective than the ideas expressed in the paragraph above, I also have some skepticism about whether this is a good idea for Republicans to pursue. Historically, Republicans have not shown an ability to structure their rhetoric around social issues well, and they have come off to voters as overly concerned about marginal issues The selection of Walz especially seems like bait for Republicans to try to center transgender issues (“Tampon Tim”) in their campaign: this rarely works for Republicans outside of certain, very specific, contexts.
All of these prior issues have ballooned into a deeper problem that needs to be addressed: the ground game deficit that comes from the lack of a united front. With the exception of Sherrod Brown and Jon Tester’s Senate campaigns in Ohio and Montana, respectively, all Democrats have rallied together with Harris to essentially create one unified campaign. A Harris event is also an event to boost down-ballot figures, and more crucially, a down-ballot event is also a Harris event. This energizes voters and makes fundraising and campaign coordination much easier As mentioned before (and will be expanded on in a later update), Republicans will not be able to match this as effectively due to some questionable candidate selection costing them, especially in Senate races. That being said, even if they must play with the hand they have been dealt, it still needs to be played to the best of their abilities. The Republicans seem to have much less coordination across campaigns (Presidential vs Congressional) with Trump, as mentioned before, switching control of field offices to PACs that legally can only campaign for him. Furthermore, popular Republican surrogates who, either through their own volition or due to Trump, have not fully hopped on the support train for the campaign. If Trump cannot figure out a way to overcome the ground-game deficit, even as he rakes in fewer funds than Harris, this may be the thing that costs not only him but also down-ballot Republicans in general.