60 Senate seats

How the Dems would govern if they could - and no, it would not be communism or wokeness on steroids.

Vice President Kamala Harris is taking some heat for being vague on policy. That suggests that people are forgetting, as they often do at this point in campaigns, to pay little heed to the promises of politicians.

This point in campaigns is about maximizing support, not holding policy discussions. The wonks tend to hate and mock this, and it indeed debases democracy, but it’s also a fact of life. There are exceptions, but generally, as every study shows, policy is a lesser factor, especially among swing voters, than psychology, intuition, and emotion. 

But journalists must journalize, and pundits tend to complicate. Even sober-minded outlets are getting in line to demand from Harris a more robust platform. “But how would she govern?” asked The Economist on its cover last week.  Bloomberg’s newsletter peevishly complained that the Democrats are “Big on love, short on details” and yearned for a policy plan for “better Bidenomics,” with transparency on taxation, and such.

They’ll probably be waiting for some time—at least until Nov. 6. Until then, everything said will be for the purposes of getting the base off their couches (a step to the left) and seducing swing voters (a skip to the right).

If America had high levels of participation in elections, this calculation would shift somewhat, and the middle ground would be decisive—but as 40 percent of those eligible to vote don’t (it was slightly better in 2020), getting out the base becomes equally as important as persuading the swing vote. This assures flipflops and prevarications.

This is by no means to say that the issues don’t matter.