Running against Donald Trump presents a double-edged sword: his record offers so many vulnerabilities that it’s challenging to decide which one to prioritize. Trump is a crook, a clown, a racist, a rapist, a corporatist, an insurrectionist, a fascist, a fraud, and a fool. He was a lousy businessman and a worse President. With such a target-rich environment, each issue could be disqualifying on its own. However, the last nine years have repeatedly shown that making a compelling argument against Trump is more complex than it seems. The challenge has always been knitting this into one coherent argument about Trump that speaks to people’s concerns.

This challenge was once again brought to the fore when John Kelly, Trump’s former Chief of Staff, told the New York Times that Trump met the definition of a “fascist.” For all the obvious reasons, this revelation dominated the campaign. In a CNN Townhall, Vice President Kamala Harris spoke with Anderson Cooper, expressing her agreement with Kelly’s characterization of Trump as a fascist.

Harris’s choice to label Trump a "fascist" has, for a host of contentious reasons, reignited a simmering debate among Democrats about the most effective closing message for the campaign. Should she highlight her economic track record or emphasize the risks another Trump presidency poses? 

On one side, you have folks like longtime Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg who argues:

Harris needs to finish positive on how she will battle for the middle class and help with the cost of living. Use the checklist to educate on her plans, including a middle tax cut benefiting 100 million.

Michael Podhorzer, the former political director for the AFL-CIO, has argued that highlighting Trump’s dangers is the best way to turn out the anti-MAGA majority.

Kamala Harris is set to deliver her "closing argument" speech on Tuesday from the Ellipse (President’s Park South) on the National Mall, the same location where Trump infamously held the rally that preceded the January 6th Capitol riot. The location choice strongly suggests that Harris intends to close her campaign with a focus on Trump. However, a new ad from her campaign cleverly weaves both key messages—highlighting her economic accomplishments and addressing the risks of another Trump presidency.

This approach allows her to emphasize her leadership on economic issues while reminding voters of the potential dangers posed by Trump’s return to power.

A False Choice

Of course, this is ultimately a false choice—you really have to do both. To be fair to the folks on both sides, none argue that you do one to exclude the other completely. But when it’s so hard to grab the voters’ attention who will decide the election, how you use those fleeting moments is a big strategic question.

Podhorzer et al. are 100% right that the public, the press, and the body politic are not sufficiently alarmed about another Trump presidency. You don’t need Kelly’s revelations; every day, Trump promises deeply dangerous things. Project 2025 lays out in detail how he will use power to take away our freedoms. You have to believe that if more people knew that Trump wanted to use the military against his domestic political enemies, fewer people would support him. I’m not talking about the MAGA hat-wearing base. They aren’t going anywhere, no matter what you tell them. I am referring to the approximately 10% of voters who are either undecided or open to changing their minds in the next eight days.

It’s also true that the economy is the top issue for most voters, and Trump has an advantage. Harris began this campaign as a largely unknown figure — especially regarding the economy. Very few people knew very much about her economic record or philosophy. To the extent that they knew anything, it was her association with the Biden economic record that they held in low esteem. Most of these swing voters are cross-pressured. They have concerns about Trump but trust him more on the economy. If Harris can reach a certain level of trust in the economy (and prices in particular), they would be willing to vote for her.

Even if you believe that Harris should spend every moment of every day talking about the economy, the media environment doesn’t allow it. Stories about the economy don’t drive ratings or clicks, and social content about economic plans rarely goes viral.

Want to capture people’s attention? A retired four-star general calling his former boss a fascist is bound to dominate the news, and Harris had to respond. She couldn’t just ignore the revelation that Trump’s closest advisers see him as a fascist willing to use the military against American citizens who oppose him—not by simply reiterating her tax plan.

And if she had spent last week ignoring the big fat orange elephant in the room, she would have ceded the stage to Trump, who would have directed the conversation back to more favorable territory for him.

The Harris closing argument ad merges the two conversations into one coherent narrative.

Making It Matter to People

The single piece of content that best represents failures of anti-Trump messaging is this ad from the Clinton campaign in 2016.

The spot was hailed as a devastating attack and a powerful closing argument when it aired. We would learn later that voters are willing to put up with a lot of horribleness in a politician if they think that person can help improve their lives. To make the fascist argument work, you have to make it matter to people with some measure of granularity.

The Harris campaign’s closing argument ad is reminiscent of Harris’s best moment at the CNN town hall when she said that Trump had an enemies list and she had a to-do list. Harris later released an actual to-do list.

Stipulating that most Americans probably know that fascism is bad but probably can’t define it, the new Harris ad connects Trump’s desire for unchecked power with a series of adverse economic consequences for American families.

Because the Vice President has only been in the race for a few months, the Harris campaign must do two things simultaneously. It’s not easy, but they have the right approach. And it’s certainly light years more effective than the racist insanity offered at Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally.

Share