Douglas Schoen: Harris’ CNN interview did little to sway voters, but she did a good job

More than a month after being elevated to the Democratic nominee for President, Vice President Kamala Harris sat for her first interview on Thursday night, where she outlined an administration that would prioritize pragmatism and consensus building.

Flanked by her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, and taking friendly questions from CNN’s Dana Bash, Harris consistently sought to portray herself as a middle-of-the road Democrat, although she gave scant details on specific policies she would pursue.

And while this interview may not completely quiet complaints that Harris has avoided the media, it was, on balance, a good job. 

Moreover, Harris’ commitment to put a Republican in her Cabinet was a clever appeal to Republican-leaning Independents who may be wary of a second Trump term but are concerned that a Harris administration would be too far to the political left.

Put another way, Harris mostly accomplished everything she needed to. She can now say that she’s sat for a major interview, and she did nothing that would curtail her momentum ahead of the September 10th debate, which will be much more influential in voters’ minds. 

Assisted by relatively little pushback or follow up from Bash, Harris avoided responding to questions about her history of flip-flopping on issues like fracking and border security – simply saying, “my values have not changed.”

That was a line Harris repeated often, clearly hoping that it was opaque enough to brush aside concerns among moderates that her administration would take a far-left turn, without alienating the party’s progressive wing. 

Of course, politicians – like anyone – can see their positions on issues evolve as time goes on, but Harris’ history of flip-flopping is a considerable vulnerability for her campaign, and Harris did little to address those concerns.

That being said, a politician’s job is to win, and Harris was undoubtedly trying to tack to the center, speaking to swing voters in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, and a handful of other swing states. 

Her reversal on fracking and decision to conduct the interview in Savannah in particular were likely aimed at swing voters in two states – Pennsylvania and Georgia – that Biden narrowly won in 2020, and she must win in November.

When it came to President Biden and the Biden-Harris administration’s record, Harris offered a strong defense of Biden the man, yet mostly avoided attempting to defend the administration’s record, as well has her role in it. 

Making the case that history will show Biden’s presidency to be “transformative” and pledging to build on Biden’s agenda, Harris went to great lengths to avoid committing to any specific policies she would continue, or where she would break from the president.

And, when pressed on her defense of Biden amid questions over the president’s competency for a second term, Harris refused to answer, instead lavishing praise on Biden’s “intelligence,” “judgment,” and “disposition.”

Similarly, Harris sidestepped questions on whether “Bidenomics” was a success, pointing to the latest sub-3% inflation report, without noting that the average annual inflation during Biden’s presidency has been nearly double, at 5.7%, or that prices are cumulatively up nearly 20% since Biden and Harris took office.

On foreign policy – specifically the war in the Middle East which has divided Democrats – Harris toed the Biden administration’s line, repeating her support for Israel’s right to self-defense but criticizing the toll of the war in Gaza and her support for a two-state solution. 

To be sure, Harris’ tactic of avoiding direct answers to her shifting positions, as well as her ties to an unpopular administration should be openings for the Trump campaign. 

Whether portraying Harris as a political chameleon or tying her to the Biden-Harris administration’s record, there are a myriad of ways Trump could make the case that a Harris administration would really be a second Biden term, which voters made clear they do not want. 

Thus far however, he has been unable to make a coherent argument, resorting to ad hominem attacks. 

Instead of dissecting her interview and highlighting how Harris’ past positions are a complete reversal from her previously articulated positions, Trump followed his typical routine, posting that, “America will never allow an Election WEAPONIZING MARXIST TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE U.S.”

It should be clear, given Harris’ lead in many national and swing state polls, that these attacks are not effective, yet it has not stopped the former president from doubling down. 

Ultimately, Kamala Harris’ first interview as a presidential candidate should be seen in the context of a campaign strategy that seeks to turn the race into a personality contest, which Harris would almost certainly win. 

And while this interview alone likely did very little to sway voters, it also did nothing to harm what has, to this point, been a successful strategy.

Douglas Schoen is a longtime Democratic political consultant.