By D. Maan, Jadetimes News
Donald Trump's Return to the Campaign Trail: Struggling to Stick to the Economic Message Despite Changing Dynamics
After almost a year away from social media, Donald Trump returned to X (previously known as Twitter), asking his 89 million followers a tough question: "Are you better off now than you were when I was President?" This question resembled Ronald Reagan's famous question from his victorious 1980 campaign: "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?".
Trump's decision to focus his pitch on the economy is not unexpected. Polls have regularly demonstrated that the economy is the most important issue for American voters. According to a recent survey conducted by The Economist and YouGov, the most important problems for voters are inflation, job security, and the overall status of the economy. More importantly, these polls show considerable unhappiness with the current economic condition, which should create an ideal chance for any presidential contender.
However, the politics of this election cycle have shifted considerably, with Kamala Harris taking over as the Democratic candidate following Joe Biden's withdrawal from the campaign. Despite what should be a beneficial emphasis on the economy, Trump appears to be struggling to successfully communicate this message and capitalise on voters' economic concerns.
A Faltering Campaign Amid Rising Harris Momentum
Just a month ago, Trump was invincible. He had just ascended the stage at the Republican National Convention, riding high in the polls and having escaped an assassination attempt, which only added to his popularity. But his momentum has dissipated, and he is already losing ground. Meanwhile, Kamala Harris is gaining popularity, energising her supporters in a way that Trump is struggling to match.
The most obvious method for Trump to regain his footing would be to concentrate voters' attention on their discontent with high costs and place the responsibility firmly on Harris, Biden's vice president. Despite the obviousness of this technique, Trump has struggled to properly communicate this point.
One explanation for Trump's struggles is the Harris campaign's proactive approach to addressing economic concerns head on. In a recent address in North Carolina, Harris presented a number of initiatives targeted at reducing Americans' financial burdens. These included boosting child tax credits, making it easier for first-time homebuyers, and improving the availability of low-cost housing. In addition, she addressed the continually high cost of food and groceries, promising to prohibit price gouging and crack down on excessive corporate profits.
Harris' strategy appeals to people who, despite the country's excellent economic indicators—such as record job creation and a recent decline in inflation to below 3% continue to feel the pressure of high prices in their daily lives. Harris made the point: "By any measure, our economy is the strongest in the world, but many Americans don't yet feel that progress in their daily lives."
The Harris campaign is well aware of the mismatch between strong economic data and voter emotion, which it is seeking to rectify. As Jared Bernstein, chair of President Biden's Council of Economic Advisers, stated in a July speech, "A central banker wants inflation to return to target. A customer wants his or her previous price returned." This recognition that economic perception—what Bernstein refers to as "vibes" is just as important as economic truth may be critical in affecting voters.
Economic Frustrations on the Ground: Mixed Blame, Resignation
To understand the impact of these "vibes," explore the opinions of ordinary Americans. During a visit to a crab shack on the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland, voters expressed their dissatisfaction with the present economic situation. Jeff Tester, a marina worker, discussed how high pricing made it difficult for him to realise the American dream. "I get paid per hour. Every day, I get up and go to work. "I believe you have to do that to achieve the American dream," Tester stated. "But I just know it's getting harder."
Tester, like many others, blames the Democrats, feeling that their policies have made life more difficult for working Americans. "I blame Democrats. "I believe their policies harm the working man," he remarked.
However, not everyone shares this viewpoint. Some diners, like as Dan Nardo, a retired yacht dealer, blame the economic downturn on larger issues beyond the control of any one administration. Nardo identified the pandemic, oil costs, international wars, and supply chain disruptions as major sources of inflation. Similarly, Randy Turk, a retired lawyer, questioned if a change in leadership would appreciably alter the economic situation. "It's not like a different president can really make that much of a difference," he pointed out.
These conflicting emotions highlight a potential weakness in Trump's strategy. While many people are dissatisfied with the current economic situation, they are not confident that a change in administration will provide better results.
Harris' low profile could be a strength in a post-Biden campaign.
Kamala Harris' very muted presence throughout her vice presidency has been widely considered as a weakness. However, in the context of this campaign, it may prove to be one of her greatest assets. Because she is not as firmly identified with "Bidenomics," Harris has been able to enter the spotlight with fewer negative associations attached to her name. This distance could be critical to her ability to connect with people who are frustrated with the economy but are unclear whether a change in leadership can make a difference.
Polling data backs up this narrative. Ruth Igielnik, polling editor at the New York Times, observed that Americans' negative attitudes about the economy are still mainly connected with Joe Biden. In contrast, Trump's once-dominant edge over Biden on economic matters has reduced to just 8 points when measured against Harris. This implies that, while Americans may support Trump on the economy, they are not always attributing their economic woes on Harris.
Furthermore, a separate poll done this week by the Financial Times and the University of Michigan Ross School of Business found Harris with a small advantage over Trump in terms of which candidate Americans trust to handle the economy. This shift in voter attitude could signal a larger trend as the campaign unfolds.
Trump's Struggle to Stay on Track: A Missed Opportunity?
Given these circumstances, it's no surprise that Republicans are advising Trump to concentrate on the economy and avoid becoming distracted by personal attacks on Harris. However, Trump has found it impossible to follow this counsel. During a recent address, he acknowledged the importance of the economy as a topic, saying, "They say it's the most important subject," referring to his advisers who see it as his most effective line of attack. However, he rapidly drifted off subject, citing immigration, violence, and even Harris' chuckle as major worries.
This unwillingness to focus on the economy could be disastrous. Matt Terrill, former chief of staff for Marco Rubio's presidential campaign, stated, "Independent, undecided, swing voters in key states care about the economy and inflation, so focus on those core issues." Stay focused on how you want to improve the lives of Americans over the next four years."
Terrill's counsel mimics the well-known term used by Democratic strategist James Carville during Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign: "It's the economy, stupid." This motto has driven innumerable campaigns since, and it is still as important as ever.
Will Trump Capitalise on Economic Discontent?
Despite the hurdles, Trump still has a powerful message to convey. According to the Financial Times poll, only 19% of people say they are better off today than they were before Trump's presidency. This statistic alone has the potential to be a great rallying cry for his campaign if he can keep it in focus.
As the campaign progresses, the critical question will be whether Trump can maintain discipline and keep the discourse focused on the economic concerns that people care most about. If he can do so, he may be able to recapture his once unstoppable momentum. If not, the Harris campaign's emphasis on addressing voters' everyday concerns might propel her to victory.
Finally, this election may come down to who can best catch and address Bernstein's economic "vibes" whether favourable or bad. Trump finds it difficult to stick to the script. Harris sees it as an opportunity to change her image and engage with voters in ways that her predecessor struggled to do. The stakes couldn't be higher, and the outcome is far from guaranteed.
