Harris's Edge with Double Haters

And a challenge to readers to come up with memorably alliterative attacks

In the fall of 1992, incumbent President George H.W. Bush seemed to be dodging debates with Bill Clinton. A couple of guys in a bar in Detroit hatched a stunt where they would dress in a chicken costume and show up at Bush campaign appearances. It got a lot of attention and contributed to Bush’s eventual decision to debate Clinton.

I have thought for weeks that Donald Trump would end up agreeing to debate Kamala Harris as scheduled on October 23. Usually, he cannot resist the attention. But he got his butt kicked so bad in the first debate that he is ditching the second, as he did the 60 Minutes interview. He even refused CNN’s offer of a town hall meeting on the 23rd. Harris will hold one.

The danger for Harris is that she needs Trump out there in everyone’s face so swing voters are reminded of why they don’t like him. If he goes to ground, she should put her foot on his neck and keep it there for the duration.

I hope to see a whole coop of costume chickens outside every Trump rally. Harris should give them an explicit shout-out if their presence doesn’t get picked up by the press. A little “bawk-bawk” from the podium—or at least smiling at the “bawk-bawks” from the crowd— would drive home the point.

That point is more significant than dodging a debate. While Harris needs to keep her campaign upbeat and focused on the needs of the middle class, she also has to figure out how to stay on the offensive in imaginative ways.

I’m a big believer in alliteration. It sticks. Richard Nixon’s people knew this well. Remember “acid, amnesty and abortion” (the knockout punch delivered in 1972 to George McGovern, who lost 49 states) and “nattering nabobs of negativism” (Spiro Agnew’s description of the press)? The issues have changed—abortion now hurts, not helps, Republicans—but recognition of politics as a creative combat sport remains.

I’m spitballing here: “Hurricane of hate,” “Tornado of untruth,” “lava of lies.” Many of you can do better. Please send me your best alliterative (or not) attack lines in the Comment section below. Please explain if they should be used by Harris herself or her surrogates and ad makers. Other ideas for re-gaining momentum are also welcome.

I hope a lot of your efforts will center on attacking Trump for being weak. That’s why the chicken stunts are so important. Karl Rove instructed long ago that the best strategy includes attacking your rival’s strengths. That’s what he did in 2004 in “Swiftboating” John Kerry, the Democratic nominee. He turned Kerry’s record as a Vietnam War hero against him.

Harris should do the same with Trump’s image as a strong leader. Like all bullies, he’s a coward underneath. He’s too weak and chicken to debate. He won’t release his health records, as she did. He’s afraid to take another cognitive test.

Remember “Person, woman, man, camera, TV.”? That was in 2018, in a cognitive exam administered by White House physician-turned-MAGA congressman Ronny Jackson. Trump’s brain health has deteriorated so much in the last six years that he recently called his own doctor, “Ronny Johnson.”

The message is that Trump is a weak, confused old man pretending to be strong. Rinse and repeat.

An amusing new Lincoln Project ad uses all the doddering fool insults directed at Biden on Fox News and substitutes images of Trump. It won’t likely have enough money behind it to make much of a difference, but let’s hope the Harris campaign comes up with something similar.

Of course, none of this is aimed at Trump supporters. They are unpersuadable. But this and other attack lines could be effective with the very voters who will determine the election: “double haters.”

One of the most important polls of the year (if any poll can be considered important) came in June when Pew found that 25 percent of voters had unfavorable views of both Trump and Joe Biden, the highest number of double-haters since that question was first asked. 

Now, the “double hater” category has been shattered. Many voters don’t like Harris, but most don’t hate her, either. And they don’t think she is unfit. A recent Gallup poll showed a nail-biter, but one in which Harris has a 22-point edge on likability.

One factor keeping the Harris campaign hopeful is that 158,000 Pennsylvania Republicans voted in April for Nikki Haley in the GOP primary, more than six weeks after she dropped out. Haley gutlessly endorsed Trump, though lukewarm endorsements by defeated rivals rarely carry much weight.

Some Haley voters will happily vote for Harris; others will suck it up and go for Trump. There’s a third category of “lesser of two evils” voters. My guess is a significant number of those 158,000 Pennsylvania Republicans are former double-haters who, with Biden gone, will decide Harris is the lesser evil.

That age-old formulation pisses me off this year. After trashing Trump in The New York Times and saying he would not vote for him, Chris Christie — another gutless politician who knows better — said:

I’m not going to vote for the lesser of two evils anymore. I’ve done it before. I did it with Trump in ’16. I got motivated to support Trump because I thought Hillary Clinton would be such a bad president, you know? I’m not making a decision like that again. She’s got time to convince me. But she hasn’t done that yet.

Think about that for a minute. This year, there are not two “evils” running for president, one slightly less evil than the other. We’ve got a woman vice president with some flaws running against a former president who has gone way past corrupt, dishonest, and weak. He’s in a place reserved only for those bent on destroying our institutions and, thus, our country. There’s a word for that. It begins with “e.”

Please consider pre-ordering my new book, which launches next week. On jonathanalter.com, I give you several options for doing so.

Some nice comments:

PRAISE FOR “AMERICAN RECKONING”

“I have been deeply indebted to Jonathan Alter for his political wisdom and journalistic experience these last 20 years, and I’m grateful for this gripping guidebook through a bizarre chapter in the life of our strangest president.”—Stephen Colbert

“No cameras in the courtroom, but Jonathan Alter’s brilliant book is the next best thing or better. Alter was the best writer there, and he delivers the historic drama as no one else could.”—Lawrence O’Donnell

“Jonathan Alter’s American Reckoning is a wonderful hybrid—a memoir of an extraordinary career in journalism, a political history of our recent past, and above all, an insightful account of Donald Trump’s criminal trial in New York. It’s also a cry for decency and democracy at a critical moment.”—Jeffrey Toobin, author of Homegrown: Timothy McVeigh and the Rise of Rightwing Extremism

“Because the trial wasn’t televised, the country couldn’t experience it. Alter’s lively account brings home the drama, the twists and turns, the moments of real accountability—with broader thoughts about his own life experience and essential constitutional values. First-rate.”—Harry Litman, former federal prosecutor

“A must-read for anyone who truly cares about the majesty of the rule of law during these perilous times.”—Retired New York Judge George Grasso

“I loved reading about Jonathan’s formative years and the powerhouse women who influenced him. Now I know why he’s such an original thinker! This is a great read.”—Susie Essman, actress on Curb Your Enthusiasm