Jennifer Rubin: Ignoring bad advice is a key to winning

Harris made smart choices at every turn

By Wednesday morning, we may know the results of the presidential election. Or not. But we already know how Vice President Kamala Harris got to the precipice of history. A surprisingly significant reason was her determination — and President Joe Biden’s — to reject rotten advice.

Let’s start with the big one: “Biden should dump Harris.” Millions of pixels, gallons of ink and hours of airtime were spent explaining why she was a drag on the ticket, why Biden would do better with someone else a heartbeat away from the presidency. The reasons for the anti-Harris animus were flimsy at best. If one wanted to be generous, these voices reflected a refusal to look carefully at her political maturation. But in many cases they reflected a double standard for women and women of color. She had in fact ably served Biden and become the most effective voice in opposition to Dobbs (which may prove the most decisive factor in driving women into her camp). She could boast of numerous overseas visits and ease on the world stage. Removing her from the 2024 ticket would have created a firestorm (properly so) among the Democrats’ most loyal constituencies (Blacks and women), and, moreover, deprived Democrats of a superb candidate who would step into the top spot.

Then there was the crowd demanding an “open process” to pick the nominee once Biden stepped down. The idea was daft from the start. No Democrat with future ambitions would want to challenge the first woman of color to potentially lead the ticket. Spending money and resources on such an effort would have chewed up valuable time. In any event, Harris rendered the issue moot. With remarkable speed, she locked up support, got the convention delegates on board and then pulled off an upbeat, near-flawless convention.

Oh, and then there was the chorus of critics convinced that she should let pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel voices speak at the convention and/or move to denounce Israel. This was supposed to “solve” a problem with young voters (one that never really seemed to materialize) and provide solace to the far left. Instead, she drew a careful line: Push for an end to the war; get the hostages back. (Achieving that in office will not be so easy, of course.)

In fact, campus and other protesters overplayed their hand, too often touting Hamas, celebrating 10/7, expressing disdain for Israeli lives and revealing anti-Israel rather than pro-Palestinian sentiment. At rallies, she acknowledged hecklers’ concerns but reclaimed her time. (“I’m speaking now.”) Both as a policy and a political matter, Harris played it right.

With her campaign underway, we also saw well-meaning former Republicans insist that she move to the “center.” Actually, as I explained, her positions on issues had overwhelming, bipartisan support. She has never been the radical lefty her critics made her out to be. Instead, she rolled out a dynamic, detailed progressive agenda heavy on tax cuts for working- and middle-class Americans and consistent with Biden’s successful investment in 21st century technologies. On immigration, she held her ground, using the bipartisan border bill both as a shield against right-wing attacks and a weapon to demonstrate MAGA Republicans’ unseriousness about the issue.

Then, when she made a sustained effort to reach out to Republicans, and even to campaign with Liz Cheney, some on the left got huffy. “As Vice President Kamala Harris makes a broad play to the political center, some Democrats worry that she is going too far in her bid to win over moderates who are skeptical of former president Donald J. Trump,” the New York Times intoned. “In private — and increasingly in public as Election Day fast approaches — they say she risks chilling Democratic enthusiasm by alienating progressives and working-class voters.”

Harris wisely ignored such peevishness. She understood that politics is about addition. She could reach out to Republicans, opening the door to suburban voters, White women and others who had not previously supported a Democrat without losing any of her enthusiasm for a progressive domestic agenda. If she wins, then what the Times described as her “economic platform on middle-class issues like small businesses and entrepreneurship rather than raising the minimum wage” and “harder-line stance on the border”, plus her moderate tone on guns (touting her Glock ownership) may demonstrate that Democrats need not sacrifice winnable independents and Republicans to satisfy their own base.

The votes have yet to be counted. Harris does not have this wrapped up. But if she prevails, she will have demonstrated a level of political sophistication, strategic foresight and common sense that her critics from the left and the right lacked. It is no easy thing to find smart advisers and adept operatives, but it may be even harder to screen out the noise from a thousand voices, none of whom ever ran a campaign. Knowing when to pay attention to outsiders and when to block them out might be the key to a successful presidential campaign — and administration.