Atlantic interview w/ Harris campaign staff: Trump was up 8-10% at time of switch

[wbrocks67]

Another interview with the campaign team - not a ton new but some tidbits that were interesting:

- They did see a bump around the debate, but "there was no point at all where data told us anything but that this was an extremely close race"
- Plouffe got specific and said they had maybe one round of numbers after the debate that had them up in the Blue Wall, but it was only by like a point
- They also saw Trump's retroactive numbers rising and even when some voters were presented with info about how awful his first term was, some just refused to believe it/remember it (I thought this was interesting - apparently some voters they tested got more and more frustrated because the more negative advertising on Trump, the less they refused to remember/believe it - this kind of goes to the point they made on PSA where there was no more runway to continue to tell people who Trump was - they know who he was - so the best they could really do is contrast what he would do *in a second term* because relitigating the past was not working)
- Plouffe says when they got in, Trump was at around 48% and Biden was in high 30s to low 40s and thats where Harris started - "the movement was Democrats and Dem-leaning independents, they were the easier for us to move. The toughter stuff to move is true undecideds or lean-Trump voters, which we weren't able to do enough of it"
- They're asked about the "fall tightening" but they say they never really saw that in their numbers; "This notion that we had a lead post-debate that we squandered- we never saw that internally"
- They defend Cheney decision again; JOD says they believe the coalition to beat Trump includes moderate Republicans. Plouffe says 2 reasons: to create a permission structure for the type of voters they needed to hit 50% and a permission structure for the broader electorate, to help inoculate from the notion that she is a "crazy California liberal"
- They thought they were closing well in theory, but admit that voters who broke in the last week broke slightly for Trump because the messages were just overwhelmed by "peoples unhappiness with the current situation and wanting change"
- On Election Day, JOD says they "came in ahead in our data in Michigan and Wisconsin and tied in Pennsylvania" (have no idea what 'ahead' means but given everything else they said, I only imagine it could be like a point at best) - she says "we felt positioned to win a very, very close race"
- Folks: "The undecideds that we felt would break for us ultimately broke for Trump"

They also talk again about the media environment, low info voters, Dems needing to break through with engagement better, etc. mostly similar to the PSA interview

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/12/harris-team-election/680844/

[wbrocks67]

Sadly, it seems like the NYT/Siena poll was correct in both national iterations - their final national poll (tie) but also there final national poll before Biden dropped where he was down like 8 I think.

If that's correct, Trump already had most of his locked in voters, and Harris was able to claw back *a lot* of those disaffected Democrats that may have stayed home if Biden stayed in the race. Seems like the most likely issue is what they said - she was able to make up a huge amount of ground, but the environment led a few more folks to break for Trump, and that's what got him close to 50, past the 48 watermark, even as she clawed back like 10% from where Biden was when he dropped out.

[インターネット掲示板ユーザー Punxsutawney Phil]

This is eerily similar to my take - they made mostly correct decisions but the incorrect ones they made ultimately denied them the win, and more than anything else the environment sank the campaign.

[ProgressiveModerate]

In hindsight, you do have to give the campaign a lot of credit for keeping the election as close as it did and preventing a down ballot wipe-out that would've been hard to claw out of.

This is reflected in Harris holding up disproportionately well in many of the swing states, and regions like Central PA barely budging as Demographically similar areas were having clear shifts to the right.

I do believe this election was winnable, but Democrats had to start a lot further back than the switch - Biden never seeking re-election, Biden admin better at messaging about accomplishments, more Dems acknowledging early on Conservative dominance on online spaces and trying to do something about it, ect.

Just thinking about the alternative reality where Biden stayed in and Trump won in a landslide with massive Congressional majorities is scary.

[wbrocks67]

This is eerily similar to my take - they made mostly correct decisions but the incorrect ones they made ultimately denied them the win, and more than anything else the environment sank the campaign.

Yeah, people seem to be really upset with their interviews but from a general viewpoint... most of what they're saying is.. generally spot on? Like I'm not expecting them to do a whole mea culpa of like "we really screwed up and here's XYZ of what we did wrong" because a) i don't think there's *a ton* they screwed up on, and b) we still don't know the full extent of what happened as more data will come in in the weeks/months to come, so I don't expect they're jumping to conclusions other than some of the general ones that have been seen elsewhere (global anti-incumbency, etc.) I also don't expect them to throw Harris under the bus either given a) the circumstances and b) the stuff you could ding on her like View answer, etc. wasn't really likely determinative in the end

They touch on other things too, like how voters simply were unhappy with their lives during Biden and basically treated Trump as the normal candidate who was not the incumbent, and given how they felt about the economy under his watch, that basically negated most of the negative things about him to a certain subset of voters that was determinative

[wbrocks67]

In hindsight, you do have to give the campaign a lot of credit for keeping the election as close as it did and preventing a down ballot wipe-out that would've been hard to claw out of.

This is reflected in Harris holding up disproportionately well in many of the swing states, and regions like Central PA barely budging as Demographically similar areas were having clear shifts to the right.

I do believe this election was winnable, but Democrats had to start a lot further back than the switch - Biden never seeking re-election, Biden admin better at messaging about accomplishments, more Dems acknowledging early on Conservative dominance on online spaces and trying to do something about it, ect.

Just thinking about the alternative reality where Biden stayed in and Trump won in a landslide with massive Congressional majorities is scary.

Plouffe does say pretty much that - he's not sure if the race was winnable for Dems, but that the "cardinal sin" that made it very hard to win was Biden's timing on the dropout. He posits how if this had happened last Winter, they could've actually had a primary, or at least given Harris way more time to build a campaign, and both those things would've given them a better chance.

[I love MAGA, don’t send me to the camps]

It’s wild to think of what a Trump+6-7 map would like vs. Biden.

[Joe Rogaine]

That third point is just sad.

[Skill and Chance]

Something was very off with the public and private Michigan polling then.  It wasn’t obviously left of the other swing states.  Wonder what was missed?

[Crane]

That third point is just sad.

It's a cult for a deranged narcissist.

"That didn't happen. And if it did, it wasn't that bad. And if it was, that's not a big deal. And if it is, that's not his fault. And if it was, he didn't mean it. And if he did, you deserved it."

[VALibertarian]

Excellent summary wbrocks, good stuff and interesting tidbits.

I would be curious what they thought Biden's realistic ceiling would be come election day - surely some dem voters would have come home. I'd also be curious what the Harris strategy for the VP debate would have been had Biden stayed in and what if any prep was done for it.

It is interesting how little they seem to think the debate mattered - given the consensus across here and legacy media was Trump was trounced (and he did bungle it by and large I'll admit, easily taking Harris's bait). It seems to favor the idea that opinions of Trump were largely baked in.

[John Lewis Fan]

Kind of off topic but somewhat related but does anyone know anything about election tell all books are in progress or when they will come out? I know the writers of Lucky and Shattered have a book deal on the election but I don't know anything else and when I asked them they said that had no details at that time.

[Pericles]

The internal polling done for Biden after the debate would have been a mess because the pollster would have known it was so important. Either they would have been giving a best-case scenario or his floor (as this appears). It would be interesting to see how Harris compared with pre-debate Biden internals though.

[New World Man]

She was also a bad nominee and we should have had at least a contested convention.

[wbrocks67]

She was also a bad nominee and we should have had at least a contested convention.

If this was December 2023, sure, but July 2024? Still a big no on that. They also (rightly) noted in this one that most campaigns have like 8-10 months at least to do all the things they needed to do, especially starting out with a biography while also attacking your opponent and laying out your vision, etc., and the fact that they only had 3 months to do this made it extremely hard. A contested convention would've left a new nominee with basically 2 months.

[wbrocks67]

Excellent summary wbrocks, good stuff and interesting tidbits.

I would be curious what they thought Biden's realistic ceiling would be come election day - surely some dem voters would have come home. I'd also be curious what the Harris strategy for the VP debate would have been had Biden stayed in and what if any prep was done for it.

It is interesting how little they seem to think the debate mattered - given the consensus across here and legacy media was Trump was trounced (and he did bungle it by and large I'll admit, easily taking Harris's bait). It seems to favor the idea that opinions of Trump were largely baked in.

Yeah I'd also like to hear more about the debate and what their expectations were, what they thought may happen, etc. - they seem to basically say what you said, how despite it being a strong performance from Harris, so much was baked in that the best something like it could do was shift the race maybe a point, but even that would become fleeting. I think if there was a second debate in October and it went the same way, that might've been enough to push some of those undecideds back to Harris's camp but seems likely Trump was still going to get his 48%+ no matter what

[wbrocks67]

Kind of off topic but somewhat related but does anyone know anything about election tell all books are in progress or when they will come out? I know the writers of Lucky and Shattered have a book deal on the election but I don't know anything else and when I asked them they said that had no details at that time.

Shattered came out in April and Lucky came out in March, so we're probably looking at spring time I'd think.

[Redban]

Coming from Harris staff - this claim isn’t reliable. They’ have reason to try to save face : “we lost, but look how much worse Biden would’ve done! We’re still awesome!!”

[wbrocks67]

Coming from Harris staff - this claim isn’t reliable. They’ have reason to try to save face : “we lost, but look how much worse Biden would’ve done! We’re still awesome!!”

I mean it is reliable, given it lines up with the polling we saw before Biden dropped out. Are you trying to dispute the idea that Biden wouldn't have done way worse?

[Sir Mohamed]

What I generally find so amazing (in a negative sense), is Trump being on track of winning a rematch so easily. And all of this despite his baggage. Keep in mind that never before a major party nominee was convicted of a felony and under indictment for several more crimes, including conspiracy against the US govt. That's insane. Especially when you consider that Biden didn't have a scandal, a recession or a foreign war with thousands of bodybags coming home.

Tbh, it looks like Johnson in '68 had better chances to win reelection than Biden. Despite 'Nam.

[wbrocks67]

What I generally find so amazing (in a negative sense), is Trump being on track of winning a rematch so easily. And all of this despite his baggage. Keep in mind that never before a major party nominee was convicted of a felony and under indictment for several more crimes, including conspiracy against the US govt. That's insane. Especially when you consider that Biden didn't have a scandal, a recession or a foreign war with thousands of bodybags coming home.

Tbh, it looks like Johnson in '68 had better chances to win reelection than Biden. Despite 'Nam.

The only way to square it I think is that the pandemic, a once in a generation event, just changed the game in so many ways that it affected everything, and the confluence of events was so specific to the pandemic and the time afterwards.

But I also think it really should be studied after this election what voters red lines are. There's clearly a ton of voters who knew Trump was a felon, at least knew about 1/6, etc., and still voted for him because of the "economy" or what have you. So what is the line? like if a violent criminal runs for office and then says "I promise I'll bring down costs"... where is that line of what voters are willing to put up with in terms of character/morality/etc vs. what they believe will help them personally? I know that's an extreme example but I feel like it's worth looking into where the line is. Because voters rejected Kari Lake and Mark Robinson for much less! But for Trump it was no biggie. Feels like there's just way more at play here that should be studied.

[New World Man]

They are protecting themselves. This campaign ended up massively in debt after raising over a billion dollars. Much of that came from working class small donors who didn't really have it to give. Will the Atlantic ask these geniuses what happened to the money? Or why Harris did worse with virtually everyone? No accountability for what they did and didn't do. I'm still furious,sorry. We have an insane pos with nothing to lose now with a trifecta. Accept some blame or go away.

[Crane]

What I generally find so amazing (in a negative sense), is Trump being on track of winning a rematch so easily. And all of this despite his baggage. Keep in mind that never before a major party nominee was convicted of a felony and under indictment for several more crimes, including conspiracy against the US govt. That's insane. Especially when you consider that Biden didn't have a scandal, a recession or a foreign war with thousands of bodybags coming home.

Tbh, it looks like Johnson in '68 had better chances to win reelection than Biden. Despite 'Nam.

The only way to square it I think is that the pandemic, a once in a generation event, just changed the game in so many ways that it affected everything, and the confluence of events was so specific to the pandemic and the time afterwards.

But I also think it really should be studied after this election what voters red lines are. There's clearly a ton of voters who knew Trump was a felon, at least knew about 1/6, etc., and still voted for him because of the "economy" or what have you. So what is the line? like if a violent criminal runs for office and then says "I promise I'll bring down costs"... where is that line of what voters are willing to put up with in terms of character/morality/etc vs. what they believe will help them personally? I know that's an extreme example but I feel like it's worth looking into where the line is. Because voters rejected Kari Lake and Mark Robinson for much less! But for Trump it was no biggie. Feels like there's just way more at play here that should be studied.

Yes, it's a cult. When a narcissist has a cult, he trains them to trust nothing they see and less of what they hear. Trust only in the Leader.

[wbrocks67]

They are protecting themselves. This campaign ended up massively in debt after raising over a billion dollars. Much of that came from working class small donors who didn't really have it to give. Will the Atlantic ask these geniuses what happened to the money? Or why Harris did worse with virtually everyone? No accountability for what they did and didn't do. I'm still furious,sorry. We have an insane pos with nothing to lose now with a trifecta. Accept some blame or go away.

The campaign didn't end up massively in debt. Saying "why did Harris do worse with virtually everyone" is literally answered in the first post where Biden was down 8-10% when he dropped out. Framing it like that makes it seem like Harris should've magically flipped the race on its head, when we know now that that was very hard to do.

I understand people being upset and I won't try and act like her campaign team is infallible, but also acting like they should've magically made this campaign go from down nearly 10 points to nearly winning is still somehow awful is just leaving a ton of context out.

[GAinDC]

What I generally find so amazing (in a negative sense), is Trump being on track of winning a rematch so easily. And all of this despite his baggage. Keep in mind that never before a major party nominee was convicted of a felony and under indictment for several more crimes, including conspiracy against the US govt. That's insane. Especially when you consider that Biden didn't have a scandal, a recession or a foreign war with thousands of bodybags coming home.

Tbh, it looks like Johnson in '68 had better chances to win reelection than Biden. Despite 'Nam.

The only way to square it I think is that the pandemic, a once in a generation event, just changed the game in so many ways that it affected everything, and the confluence of events was so specific to the pandemic and the time afterwards.

But I also think it really should be studied after this election what voters red lines are. There's clearly a ton of voters who knew Trump was a felon, at least knew about 1/6, etc., and still voted for him because of the "economy" or what have you. So what is the line? like if a violent criminal runs for office and then says "I promise I'll bring down costs"... where is that line of what voters are willing to put up with in terms of character/morality/etc vs. what they believe will help them personally? I know that's an extreme example but I feel like it's worth looking into where the line is. Because voters rejected Kari Lake and Mark Robinson for much less! But for Trump it was no biggie. Feels like there's just way more at play here that should be studied.

He gets to 40% no matter what because he's a cult leader

The other 10% are just extremely ignorant or bad people who want to vote for other bad people