For most days in 2024 I repeated verbally and in print that “if the election were held today, Donald Trump would win.” That was while Joe Biden was his opponent. Now that Kamala Harris is in the race, things have changed dramatically.

In very early 2022, I expressed in this column my confusion about why Kamala’s approval ratings were so low (‘From the Great Beyond, Spiro’s Laughing at Kamala’, TNH, Jan. 8, 2022). I wrote: “I don’t have a particular problem with Kamala…when I think of how Kamala is compared to Hillary Clinton in terms of unlikability, I don’t think the two are even in the same league. Hillary’s incessant shrillness…makes Kamala’s cackle seem almost endearing by comparison…I don’t get why she’s so vilified…”

Well, two-and-a-half years later, it looks like the rest of America’s caught on, and suddenly Kamala is the new darling of presidential politics.

To this point, even factoring in her momentum since July, the race remains very close. I think any prediction before the September 10 debate as to who’ll win is nothing short of fortunetelling. There’s really not even a substantially certain “if the election were held today” moment to be had. Perhaps a good way to foresee the November 5 outcome is to reexamine the 1988 election, between George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis, as a guide for what may happen this time around.

In July 1988, shortly after the Democratic Convention ended but before the Republican one began (the order was reversed back then), I traveled to Greece, where Greeks were euphoric about a Dukakis victory. “He’s going to win, isn’t he?” they asked me. “Right now, it sure looks that way,” I replied. By the time I returned to the United States a few weeks later, though, Dukakis’ tremendous lead was wiped out and Bush was pulling away day by day. Just as Dukakis’ campaign had unraveled. Trump’s has been unraveling since Biden dropped out. Can he stop the freefall? And will Kamala’s campaign further ride the momentum, or will it unravel too?
One major difference between those two election years is that 1988 was called “the issueless campaign” because most Americans were largely satisfied with the way things were. Sure, people always find some reason to complain, but compared to today’s outrage over inflation, crime, wokeness, porous borders, abortion, and guns, 1988 was Utopia. Most Americans credited incumbent President Ronald Reagan for that, and adopted an “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” philosophy, thereby electing Bush, who became the first sitting vice president to win the White House since Martin Van Buren in 1836. That’s hardly the case today, as a supermajority of Americans thinks the country’s on the wrong track.

Bush’s big mistake was selecting Dan Quayle as a running mate, similar to Trump’s picking J.D. Vance. Not that Quayle and Vance were bad choices per se, but each frontrunner had a fantastic roster of far more appealing potential running mates from which to choose.

In Dukakis and Harris, the Democrats in each instance had a likable – if not sufficiently warm – candidate whose downfall was the image of being too far left of center. Democratic and Republican voters often miss the mark when it comes to assessing the opposing party frontrunner’s level of likability. Democrats overlook that when Trump’s not being petty, vulgar, and vindictive, he can be quite the charmer. Republicans falsely conflate Kamala and Hillary, not understanding that the latter is eminently more off-putting than the former. In real time, Trump’s more likable than Biden but Harris is more likable than Trump. That’s not a point to be overlooked.
Dukakis chose for a running mate Lloyd Bentsen, who was elected to the U.S. Senate from Texas in 1970, defeating the very same George Bush who headlined the opposing presidential ticket. Many thought the stately, rather conservative Bentsen overshadowed not only Dukakis and thus should’ve been at the top of the ticket, but outshone all four candidates. Kamala’s VP choice, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, like Bentsen, is the warmest of the current four, but lacks Bentsen’s centrism, and Walz’ policies in Minnesota may harm him when word gets out in the rest of the swing states.

Finally, there’s the Wimp Factor of 1988, which only few Americans probably remember nowadays. A theme resounded during the Democratic Convention that Bush was a ‘wimp’ (yes, Democrats resort to petty namecalling too, and did so ever since I can remember). But at the Republican Convention, Bush grabbed the bull by the horns, took the wimp factor head on, and turned it on its ear. By the time the Convention was over, Bush was a tough-talking candidate who had erased Dukakis’ lead, pulled ahead, and never looked back.

A carefully packaged Kamala Harris, one who strategically picks her spots, gives acceptable answers, and doesn’t put her foot in her mouth – in other words, acts like a modern-day Supreme Court nominee at the Senate Judicial Committee hearings – can win this election without being a policy wonk. Bill Clinton says that Harris will be “the president of joy.” If voters buy that, it’ll be tough to defeat her. It’s hard to beat joy.
Trump can still win this election – and quite easily – if only he’d go on a two-month fast, foregoing unforced errors that typically emerge from his mouth. But we all know he can’t and/or won’t do that, so why even bring it up? Trump’s other hope is to continue to remind voters that porous borders, rampant crime, and wokeness run amok got worse under Biden and, despite Kamala’s purported shift to the center, will get even worse under her.