Americans in Pittsburgh, in October, he said that he had a problem with them not voting for Harris because she was a woman and that‘ disguising their choice with all sorts of excuses was unacceptable to him.’ Yet from where he stood the choice, between the two candidates was clear for all to see and only one candidate, Harris made sense.’ His demeanour, pocketing, and his tone, that of a parent scolding a child from his high horse did not go well at all.
The backlash was swift and intense, as many felt he was looking down on them, making assumptions about their stance without understanding their perspective. To add insult to injury this was a candidate the African-Americans had supported and put into the Oval Office twice. Yet, many believe that he did not add much value to them, specifically, as President. In retrospect, he may not have been the best person to berate them for the choice they were making. In my view, he also took too long to endorse her and also went out campaigning late in the day apparently to coincide with early voting. In the end, he may not have added much value, reinforcing the perception that the Democrats and many of those on the left‘ have a self-righteous attitude.’ Therefore like dew which dries with the first rays of the sun and is quickly forgotten, so was his impact.
Hillary Clinton, who had lost to Trump in 2016 and was likely using the campaign to promote her new book, Something Lost, Something Gained: Reflections on Life, Love & Liberty, did not contribute much value to the effort. Instead of sharing lessons from her experience to guide Kamala onto the right path, she came across as someone harbouring a grudge over her defeat to Trump. In a bare-knuckled review of the book, The Guardian Newspaper wrote:‘ Hilary seems unable to accept her 2016 defeat, coming out across in her memoir as uptight and grandiose and a victim of lingering PSTD.’
On the other hand, Michelle Obama is someone I would have in my corner any day. Having focused so much on President Obama due to his almost meteoritic rise and improbable achievement, I almost missed how deep, smart and convincing Michelle is. In the last two years, I have watched her and realised I would have missed a lot. In a rally in Kalamazoo, Michigan, the first time Michelle campaigned for Kamala, she spoke passionately about women’ s reproductive health and rights and why Trump is a danger to the gains made thus far. Michelle speaks from the heart and is passionate about issues she believes strongly about; making her a very convincing orator. However, on that day she may have gone too far and sounded a tad like an exasperated lecturer wondering why her students just didn’ t get it. She stated that a vote for Trump was a vote against women adding that‘ it’ s heartbreaking to think that the men we love are unaware of or don’ t care or are indifferent to our plight.’ As I stated earlier research shows that men do care, want their women to be okay, and have their best interest, though we may not understand what they go through. However, a constant reminder, in detail, is not what they needed.
Given that some members of Obama’ s campaign team were still active, I’ m surprised Kamala didn’ t bring any of them on board- particularly David Axelrod, a strategist and CNN contributor, and Jim Messina, an experienced data analyst. I’ m confident they would have added significant value as they have the experience and understood the critical issues and how best to deliver. When Kamala lost, David Axelrod commented on one of their strategic flaws noting that‘ you cannot approach working class people like missionaries telling them,“ we are here to save you”. This is one of the challenges of the Democratic Party. They are seen as looking down on working-class people, tolerating them at best, and ignoring them most of the time- only remembering them every four years when elections approach. It came to bite them. It is ironical that Trump with all his short comings and lifestyle could have endeared himself to them motivating them to cast their votes his way.
What’ s baffling is why all the celebrity endorsements and appearances at rallies seemed to add little value beyond creating momentary excitement. The jury is still out there though we are learning one or two things. One is that celebrity endorsements can increase engagement and voter registration but do not impact on how people vote.‘ Voters can do more research after a celebrity endorsement but vote based on their values not those of their endorser’ according to The Independent UK newspaper.‘ Celebrity endorsements are highly overrated. Just because you like someone’ s music doesn’ t mean that that person has political clout with you,” Louis Perron, political strategist and author of Beat the Incumbent: Proven Strategies and Tactics to Win Elections, told Al Jazeera,“ On top of that, young voters are notoriously unreliable to turn out and vote.” An endorser cuts both ways increasing registration and even turnout but aiding your opponent. And they can be expensive. If Fox News is credible, Oprah was paid USD 1 Million for her role in the campaign. Her team clarified that it was her company that was paid to organise the event. But perception is reality. Lastly, there is a section of the populace who don’ t hold celebrities in high
MAL63 / 24 ISSUE