More Puzzling Questions About The Harris Campaign

I posted yesterday about the lack of Harris surrogates, which seems tro be forcing the campaign to send its top candidates plus the Second Dude to put out seemingly minor fires in New Hampshire, Minnesota, and Virginia. I'm still scratching my head about this -- but now there's a piece in Politico that has other commentators puzzled:

Kamala Harris’ campaign and the Democratic National Committee said Tuesday they are sending nearly $25 million to support down-ballot Democrats — an earlier investment and far more money than the top of the ticket has sent in past election years.

The funding in part reflects the Harris operation’s ability to spread money around after record fundraising over the past six weeks. But it is also a recognition of the importance of this year’s down-ballot races — which overlap with many of the swaths of the country that could decide the presidential election, and whose outcomes will substantially affect how Harris, or former President Donald Trump, will be able to govern next year.

The mention of down-ballot races -- which I also thought was a factor in yesterday's visits to states thought to be safe -- brought to mind again Nancy Pelosi's strategy in pushing Joe out of the race:

. . . Pelosi, in a July 10 interview, declined to directly answer when asked if Biden had her support in his reelection bid after his ruinous debate performance.

"It's up to the president to decide if he is going to run," Pelosi told MSNBC's "Morning Joe" co-host Jonathan Lemire. "We're all encouraging him to make that decision because time is running short."

. . . Her comments blunted any progress Biden was trying to make persuading congressional Democrats that he was up for the job. And Pelosi's ambiguous public comments instead created space for rank-and-file Democrats to pressure the president to drop out.

She and other leading members of the Democratic Party raised concerns that his staying in the race could have a negative impact on Democratic candidates down-ballot.

But this again feeds my thinking about the missing surrogates. The closest thing Kamala's had to a new surrogate lately has bwen Joe Biden, but after appearing with Kamala at a Pittsburgh Labor Day event, he made it plain that this wouldn't be a regular thing:

President Biden lamented late Monday that his Secret Service protective detail doesn’t let him get up close and personal with audience members at events — despite him having the authority to overrule their advice.

Biden, 81, who has a lengthy history of accusing his handlers and security of getting in his way, made the complaint to reporters as he returned from campaigning with Vice President Kamala Harris in Pennsylvania on Labor Day.

“Feels good,” the president told a reporter who asked how it felt to be on the stump again, “except I’m not able to go out into crowds anymore, the Secret Service doesn’t let me.”

But it appears that Joe would be of little help in any case:

Say what you will about Joe Biden, the man is a great communicator. Because I would absolutely agree we are the greatest alsbnzittnkssnsd… manufac….. jakahn ndkfnfm.. county…. Aaaljdnddmmmmmmmmm… state…. Hahajs mmmm.. city in world world. You tell em Joe. pic.twitter.com/azUmr57STO

— Jay (@jaysonica) September 2, 2024

But this still leaves open the question of why, although they made token appearances at the Chicago convention, neither the Clintons nor Obama seem eager to campaign for Kamala. And where's Bernie Sanders, or for that matter Elizabeth Warren or AOC? This comes as Democrats behind the scenes are scaling back expectations. In a memo to staff over the weekend, Harris campaign chair Jen O'Mally Dillon said Democrats are "the clear underdogs":

[M]ake no mistake: we head into the final stretch of this race as the clear underdogs. Donald Trump has a motivated base of support, with more support and higher favorability than he has had at any point since 2020." In nine days, "Vice President Harris will face Trump on the debate stage, where we expect him to be a formidable opponent. In 2020, the election came down to about 40,000 votes across the battleground states. This November, we anticipate margins to be similarly razor-thin."

David Plouffe, an Obama strategist sent to beef up the Harris campaign, has a similar take:

“There’s not a scenario here that’s easy,” Harris senior adviser David Plouffe told the Associated Press. “The pathway to beating Donald Trump, the pathway to 270 electoral votes for Kamala Harris is exceedingly hard but doable. And that’s just a reality.”

I'm continuing to think that 1972 is the closest parallel we have to this year's environment for Democrats. So far, for instance, although Michigan Gov Gretchen Whitmer is co-chair of the Harris campaign, we don't seem to be seeing her campaigning on Harris's behalf in Michigan, a key state -- and she withdrew from consideration as a Harris running mate. The same seems to be true of Pennsylvania Gov Josh Shapiro -- Joe Biden made a token appearance in Pittsburgh on Labor Day, but Shapiro wasn't around. He also appears to have withdrawn as a potential running mate after a bad final interview with Harris.

And where's Gavin Newsom? I'm wondering if, as in 1972, prominent Democrats don't want to be closely associated with the candidate, because their instancts are telling them to stay away.