As a long-time observer of US politics, what I have noticed is how history has a tendency to repeat itself. For example, this year is looking a lot like 1988 for the presidential contest whereby the Democrats eschewed some heavyweight figures and selected a lightweight, Michael Dukakis, who went on to lose by quite a comfortable margin. If you look at the map showing the state of the Electoral College it is also reminiscent of 1988.
The gap between the two candidates was never all that large in the popular vote, but it was never credible to suggest Dukakis was able to win 270 electoral votes. There are several states on that map where no actual polling – or none since Biden quit – has been undertaken and I wouldn't be too sure even they are in the Harris column. New Jersey, with its large Italian/Catholic population, and 2021 election results at the local level, must be a possibility for Donald Trump. I wouldn't go taking Rhode Island or New Hampshire for granted as Harris states either.
The simple fact is: Kamala Harris is the "designated loser" for 2024. Trump won't be a candidate in 2028 and a lot of supposedly heavy-weight Democrats like Newsom or a couple of US Senators who spring to mind, would prefer to wait until then. It is only Harris herself who doesn't realise what her role is this year. Like all political leaders who are too stupid to read Machiavelli – and if they have are too stupid to understand his warnings - she has fallen into the trap of listening to the flatterer.
In ‘Harrisland’ she is the greatest American president in history; it was a similar thing in Jacindaland circa 2021 in New Zealand. Both can live in a self-indulgent fantasy world unaware they're being set up to lose.
What has been happening in recent weeks, with a regularity that means it is deliberate, are a series of leaks and banana skins Harris walks into. This is clearly coming from those who require her to lose this year and are not taking any chances. Nobody on her side would have advised her to ignore the media for eight weeks, or to have her vice presidential candidate sitting in on her sole media interview (making her look a bit like his secretary there to take notes). We can only speculate who gave her the infamous earpiece for the debate – then had their social media people declaring it an earpiece before the debate even ended.
Her role as designated loser is not unique. The Democrats have a curious tendency to put forth such candidates on a regular basis; Alton Parker (goodness know where they found him) in 1904 against Teddy Roosevelt, John Davis in 1924, John Kerry in 2004, these all spring to mind whenever the stars indicate those who actually want to be the president should sit things out and be patient.
Over the next few weeks there will be a lot of talk from a discredited mainstream media in America, dutifully repeated in the NZ media, suggesting Harris is about to win in a landslide. Ignore it. America's most accurate pollster of the 21st century, Rasmussen, has Trump leading in the popular vote and the Electoral College favors Trump over Harris by a comfortable margin. Like September 1988 you really have to be an optimist to look at that map and suggest Harris can get to 270 – especially when the cheating in 2020 cannot be repeated.
