The fronts in the election campaign for the undecided | columnists

With the upcoming election, a voter who is also into dating and used to using apps on their phone might be tempted to swipe left or right, their head spinning like in The Exorcist as they trying to keep up with the dodging. network of candidates.

Depending on your news source, Kamala Harris is either a hard-nosed prosecutor or a bleeding-heart liberal. Her running mate is either a Mr. Mid-American father and avuncular trainer—“Weird!”—or a China-bordering socialist from a state whose more than 10,000 lakes are colored pink.

For Donald Trump and JD Vance, pro-life is the rallying cry, except when it comes to universal IVF. Confused?

In his influential 1957 book An Economic Theory of Democracy, Anthony Downs built on Duncan Black's 1948 median voter theory. They explained the tendency of politicians on both sides of the ideological spectrum to move toward the center. Downs and Black argued that centrist policy positions have the greatest appeal to voters. This may seem obvious, but other political scientists have made the calculation that going to the margins is more effective. Choose your poison. Harris walks a line between the progressive wing of her party and undecided voters wary of left-wing leanings. Fences are painful places to sit for a very long time.

From a realpolitik perspective, the Trump-Vance ticket is more difficult to understand. MAGA's takeover of the Republican Party succeeded in bringing about a generational change on the Supreme Court, leading to a post-Roe backlash, particularly among female voters. Hence the free IVF noise. Choosing JD Vance as the vice presidential candidate would appear to be a gross violation of the Black Downs Doctrine because it consolidates a minority segment of the electorate but does not create new voters. But Vance and Trump's extremist rhetoric about dismantling federal agencies and expanding the Justice Department doesn't seem to be upending perceptions of their supposed centrism.

Despite the Supreme Court's Roe verturn and the Vance effect, a recent New York Times/Siena College poll found that only a third of voters think Donald Trump is “too far to the right,” while nearly half of voters think Donald Trump is “too far right.” Voters think Kamala Harris is too far left. Walz only reinforces this concern. The Machiavellian in me thought Josh Shapiro was the smarter choice, both because of his centrism and, more importantly, because Pennsylvania could very well be a pivot in the Electoral College. Of course, Shapiro can still campaign for Harris. But it doesn't change Walz's more left-wing orientation toward a state that won't decide the election. The election of Minnesota's governor, however smug he may seem, smacks of a party that embraces political correctness, appeases the progressive left, and runs away from the fear of anti-Semitic elections rather than confronting it. A similar concern did not prevent JFK's victory in 1960.

That MAGA Republicans are projecting a stronger perception of centrality, while a headache for many, should be very concerning to Democrats, as undecideds could determine the election. According to UCLA political scientist Lynn Vavreck, interviewed on NPR this month, “about 10 percent of each side still tells us they're not sure they're going to vote for the same side.” That cumulative 20 percent is a huge one Number. Classic Washington skepticism is that there aren't many truly undecided people; they only say that when asked by pollsters. While this may have some validity, I wonder if it is a revelation that can account for 20 percent. If you believe the latest head-to-head polls, it won't take much of a percentage to win.

People vote with their wallets, and Harris has largely toed the Biden line without differentiating her own economic plan. She has sought to build on Biden's proposed tax breaks for first-time homeowners. Saying you want to improve the lives of the middle class is not the same as offering compelling policies. The Times/Siena poll data shows Trump is perceived as more centrist than Harris, revealing an electorate that values ​​policy more than personality. While Trump's tariff threats may be part of his “crazy” negotiating strategy – and may not resonate with most economists – they could convince Americans who buy into isolationist talk. Strong men often point out external threats. Because voters are not economists, someone might appear to have answers even if voters reject—or admire—his bluster. In retail policy, perception is more important than reality.

For the undecided, if they exist, it may take more than just ambiguity to win their vote. Can anger over Roe destroy the belief that Trump is a better businessman? Can Harris win in an electoral version of “The Apprentice” in which voters decide on hiring and firing? I wouldn't bet the farm in Pennsylvania or other purple swing states on it. Voters are waiting for Harris to separate himself from Bidenomics. Democrats shouldn't rely on people just to vote.