In the final stretch of the 2024 campaign, Kamala Harris appears set on emphasizing Donald Trump as a significant threat to democracy. However, polling data suggests that voters, particularly those from working-class backgrounds, may not find this message compelling. Instead, a focus on economic issues that resonate with working families could prove more effective.
Recent reports from major media outlets highlight Harris’s shift toward messaging that warns of the dangers of a second Trump term. For instance, in a new campaign ad, a voice ominously declares that Trump’s return to power would lead to unchecked authority and harm to fundamental freedoms. At a rally in Erie, Pennsylvania, Harris amplified these concerns, describing Trump as “increasingly unstable and unhinged,” emphasizing the risks he poses to democracy.
While these warnings may seem urgent, they appear to lack appeal for many voters. According to research conducted by the Center for Working-Class Politics (CWCP) in collaboration with YouGov, messages centered on economic issues and populist narratives resonate more effectively than those that portray Trump as a dictator. This study involved a representative sample of 1,000 eligible voters in Pennsylvania, a critical battleground state.
The findings revealed that messages focusing on economic matters consistently outperformed those that discussed Trump’s supposed threats to democracy. Voters showed a preference for messaging that highlighted the needs of working families, while Harris’s rhetoric on issues like abortion and immigration ranked significantly lower in favorability.
Among the tested messages, the so-called “democratic threat” narrative fared poorly. This approach described Trump as a criminal and warned voters about his plans for retribution against political opponents. It registered the lowest support, particularly among blue-collar voters, who lean Republican. In fact, this message was 14.4 points less favorable compared to Trump’s messages among this demographic.
In contrast, the “strong populist” message, which combined progressive economic policies with a sharp critique of billionaires and big corporations, resonated strongly across various voter groups, including blue-collar workers and independents. Even Republicans found this message more appealing than the democratic threat narrative.
This situation points to a critical misstep in Harris’s campaign strategy. The disconnect between her messaging and the interests of working-class voters is evident, suggesting that campaign officials may not fully grasp the preferences of this crucial constituency. By focusing on threats posed by Trump, Harris risks neglecting the opportunity to advocate for economic policies that truly matter to voters, such as revitalizing manufacturing, capping prescription drug prices, and combating offshoring.
If Harris loses the election, it may reflect a broader issue within the Democratic Party. Many working-class individuals feel alienated from a party that seems out of touch with their concerns and aspirations. A compelling, straightforward economic policy agenda is essential to reconnect with these voters and counter the narrative of elitism often associated with the party.
To defend democracy effectively, Democrats might consider shifting their focus away from constant mentions of Trump. Instead, emphasizing a vision centered on economic justice and the needs of working families could resonate more deeply with voters. By adopting a more populist approach, the campaign can better align itself with the interests of the electorate and ultimately strengthen its chances in the upcoming election.