Harris can't win the US election by using logic or emotion

It will now be argued on different issues and on different battlegrounds, not all of former president Donald Trump's choosing. His planned strategy has been much weakened and try as he might he will have difficulty in fixing Harris with the blame for any of Biden's sins, real or alleged.

But I expect that Trump must be rated a clear favourite to win the election.

He is a far better campaigner; Kamala should have more support, and more funds, than ever she had in a previous campaign, but the hustings are not her strong point, and I doubt that she can be schooled past her imperfections before November.

The present generation of Republicans are far more Trumpist than the old Republican party.

The lead players, now including JD Vance, the vice-presidential candidate, are wily, flexible and not in the least able to be contained by facts, thought out policies and debating points. These, if anyone is paying attention, is where a Harris could out-argue a Trump or a Vance. But about half the electorate is paying no attention to facts or nuances and political and economic syllogisms and common sense. They have instead talked themselves into the idea that they have had a gutful and that Trumpism, even Trump ratbaggery, could not be worse.

The task for Harris and her colleagues is to kill that mood, and I don't believe she has the skill or the reflexes to do it. Or the nastiness.

I wish she did, because a victorious Trump is a menace to world peace, to American living standards and to civilised constitutional government.

I think Harris could make a better fist of the task than Biden, whose decline was obvious over the past six months.

If Harris fails, a bitter Biden will claim he could have won it himself, but the evidence is against him. It is said that the Obamas failed to enthusiastically endorse Harris because they did not believe she could win. But they had no candidate (except, in my opinion Michelle Obama) who could do a better job with the notice they had. [I should add that my record of predicting election results, whether in America or Australia, is far from impressive. But that, if anything, spurs me towards realistic appraisal, rather than hope.]

The Trump crusade has not been gamed to be about reason, palpable hits, or inexorable logic. It is consciously programmed to be about feelings, emotions and moods, grievances and anger that important groups have been missing out. It is to that beat that the target audience is dancing.

Those who are straining to hear the words, so that they can parse, fact-check and deconstruct them have not been listening to the same music. Their analyses and their gotchas carry no weight at the campaign rallies. Not even in the congress or the Supreme Court. That some seem obsessed by unimportant details such as facts is proof of how much they are out of touch and how they do not get it.

Trump often gives the impression that he is making things up as he goes along. On some matters he may well be. But his key phrases - playing exactly on those emotions and grievances - are always rehearsed and repeated. They come through all the rambling, the blather, the well-turned insults, and the spontaneous racist and sexist abuse. They have been researched through focus groups, and are adapted according to location, audience and events. Even the undisciplined and unreliable anecdotes serve a purpose of making the man seem humble, emotional and reflective - characteristics he does not have.

In these fact-free days, quarrelling about the truth is counter-productive, a distraction, sometimes a sign of a guilty conscience or improper association with the fake-news industry. One can be assured that Trump will avoid all occasions where he can be pinned down on such matters, unless he calculates that he can put Harris to a disadvantage by making her seem a quibbler, a denier, or someone who simply does not get the strong feelings of a working class that once attached itself to her side.

In fact, Harris has little to gain in attacking feelings, emotions and grievances as such. First, it is very unlikely that Harris can draw a single vote from the ranks of those who have already committed themselves to Trump. What she must do is bring to her own cause people presently not inclined to get off their bums to vote Democrat. With the right campaign she can make constituencies realise what programs and policies are at threat. In health, and education, in social services. In environmental controls and in action on climate change. In programs for the aged, for women, for the mentally ill, and particularly for children.

Although Biden had a good record of defending and extending such programs, as well as a claim that his economic policies rebuilt the economy, he seemed by the end unable to promote his achievements. It seemed, by the end, that he was simply judged too old and too unexciting. Harris has a chance to define her side of politics as the defenders of an America that was once great, and which is now under threat because rich men have undermined the structures and institutions of proper government and the social contract represented by the New Deal.

It is to be expected that she is being described as an elitist and an ultra-liberal - that is to say almost a communist. And as one who owes her career to equity, gender and racial quotas - all, apparently in violation of the American dream. She would be wasting her time defending herself against such perceptions. She does not have the time. She would be better off demonstrating that the policies and programs she is defending have been in the mainstream of government activity for nearly a century and are scarcely radical or revolutionary. Never were. But they are increasingly problematic because they are being taken away from working Americans mesmerised into thinking that Trumpism can defund them while somehow not hurt working Americans. If she, or her advertising and marketing people, can make this the argument, she is facing, head-on, the chief vibe Trump is working on.

That vibe is not about Trump being cheated at the last election, nor about his being nailed to the cross so that he can save America. It is about resentment, particularly among the white working class, because they feel left behind by the economic and social management of minimal government, Tea Party ideology and tax concessions for the very rich. About how they have come to believe that it is the fault of immigrants taking jobs. About how they have been conned into supporting a Republican Trumpist economic and social agenda that has directly created the disadvantages of which they rightly complain.

A Harris cause of defending existing programs and policies is essentially conservative. Before Biden quit, or was pushed, the major issue was age: the sense that it was an argument between two old men, each of doubtful fitness for the job. Many potential voters could not get excited or enthusiastic about Biden, regardless of his record or his charms. Over the past nine months, that feeling was bolstered by his slavish support of Israel.

Harris provides new ways of seeing what is at stake. She can appeal to Democrat constituencies that were not being mobilised by Biden. It puts the "old man" image, complete with incoherence and arrogance, on Trump. She provides a choice and a chance to vote for a woman, to vote for a person of colour, and to vote for an experienced and educated professional with an impressive record of public service. Her life and reputation provide a clear contrast with the character, standards, and personality of Donald Trump. She is all over Vance in experience and character.

She has some deficiencies and faults. But she has a long record of public service in many fields. She has worked in state and national government. If she does not allow herself to be played by Trump, she would be focused on conserving modern government and promoting the rule of law. Not in responding to every insult, provocation and dog whistle focused on her sex, her origins and made-up allegations of patronage. All may be false but the competition wants her bogged down in those thickets rather than in taking charge of the argument.

Trump has no shame about embellishment, misrepresenting facts and fake piety. He has no shame, no rue and no sense of humour. His narcissism is so marked that one can never see him making a joke against himself, or telling of any experience in which he is not the absolute hero. The remarkable thing about his encounters with the courts over the past year is that he has not once conceded any error, even in retrospect, nor admitted even facts which have seemed obvious.

But he can pivot on issues or complaints within seconds. When he does so, he will simply ignore or deny any contradiction or change of approach. The business of getting an open concession, even in a courtroom, he cannot ignore is so tedious that even a forensic professional such as Harris cannot expect to have him at a practical disadvantage.

Anyone who has heard the sexual assault cases, or the fraud cases involving paying shut-up money to Stormy Daniels must realise that half of America believes the charges are bogus, or vindictive, or that Trump, somehow, is innocent. Those tend to be the words they use. More likely they know him to be guilty, but simply do not care. It does not come into their assessments of his character. It is probable, indeed, that the more religious committed Trump supporters are, the less likely that matters of Trump's conduct, moral standards, or record of sexual predation affects their assessment of his character.

MORE JACK WATERFORD:

Trump is very hard to pin down, and hardly ever shows the slightest embarrassment about being caught out lying, or misinterpreting matters, or being a complete hypocrite. His biggest and most effective misrepresentations involve the promotion of the theory that the economy boomed during his term, that crime and unemployment scarcely existed, and that the world was at peace, thanks to him. By contrast, he successfully invites the electorate to remember that the Biden years were ones of recession and unemployment. And an economy on its knees. And constant foreign entanglements.

Trump promises to restore the glory days, particularly for those who have suffered much. This promise is heard far more loudly than any nit-picking about the truth of the supposed decline, or in its roots in the impoverishment of government services established for the under-educated Americans he pretends to champion. His champions are not much interested in interrogating such "truths," because to them the vibe says it is true.

The character, honesty and record of Trump is a vital campaign issue. It ought to be central in mobilising support from quarters the Democrats have yet to exploit. Harris ought to be making potential voters very scared of what Trump could do.

But that's a campaign chiefly for seeking support from her own side, rather than deterring those whom Trump has already captivated and captured. I doubt Harris can win them by logic or emotion. Least of all within the time she has.