Staff Reports
The recent poll from The New York Times and Siena College has ignited a firestorm among Democrats, especially since it shows Donald Trump narrowly leading Kamala Harris by one point, 48 to 47 percent. The favorable rating for Harris has plummeted to 46 percent, marking a stark decline from her earlier days as the Democratic presidential nominee. It seems the facade of Harris as a formidable candidate is beginning to wear thin, and the left is scrambling to address this alarming reality.
As soon as the numbers hit, the reactions from the left poured out like water from a busted dam. Aaron Rupar, a frequent voice in the left-wing echo chamber, has been busy melting down about the poll, making sweeping generalizations about Americans’ intelligence. It raises the question of whether Democrats will ever consider that perhaps they have strayed off course. While Trump is no paragon of virtue, the left’s reaction hints at a deeper issue—fear of differing opinions and a refusal to acknowledge that some people dare to think differently.
Highest-rated pollster in the country and a large sample size, too. Fortunately for Harris she has the debate this week and none of this will matter if she has a good night.https://t.co/X77LYVdtVq
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) September 8, 2024
Jon Favreau, another major player in liberal commentary, weighed in with the classic theme of calling Trump supporters “stupid and ill-informed.” This narrative ignores the fundamental questions of transparency and accountability. Harris has held the vice presidency for four years and ran an unsuccessful presidential campaign in 2019. Yet, she still seems to operate in a cloak of mystery, shying away from tough questions that would clarify her policy positions. Voters are not confused; they simply see through the smoke and mirrors.
Interestingly, Harris's plans seem to borrow heavily from Trump's proposed ideas long ago. Trump’s advocacy for increasing the child tax credit, capping insulin prices at $35, and extending the tax cuts is all in direct opposition to Harris’s views. Her recent promise to build three million new homes feels more like wishful thinking than a solid plan. The reality is that the federal government does not build houses, and giving handouts to first-time homebuyers would only inflate the market prices further—showing a fundamental misunderstanding of economic principles.
Some Democrats are starting to face the music, acknowledging strategic blunders in the campaign. Many commentators believe that not selecting Josh Shapiro as her running mate was a critical error that left her vulnerability exposed. By aligning herself with radical elements rather than focusing on pragmatic choices, Harris has put the Democratic campaign at significant risk. If she fails to secure the presidency, her ill-fated decisions will undoubtedly be cited as the turning point.
Ultimately, the Harris campaign seems to be built on a shaky foundation of vague optimism rather than concrete policies or strategies. Voters are beginning to see her as an empty suit who offers little beyond superficial platitudes. The upcoming debates could provide an opportunity for her to turn things around, but the notion of coasting to victory on mere “vibes” has shown itself to be a fantasy. The landscape of the election is shifting, and the Democrats are starting to feel the pressure heat up.
