The Road to the US Elections: The Differences in Campaign Strategy

I believe it is fair to say that when a person is selling a product or service, how they present the product or service itself counts a great deal, before you even consider what they are selling. In fact, we have language and behaviour that corresponds with  this in society: people often say presentation matters for chefs because people eat with their eyes first; professionals are also encouraged to dress for the job they wish to occupy because how they look communicates their professional ambition.
Now, I say this because we have to visit the campaign strategy that we have seen from Kamala Harris and the Democrats leading to the US election, especially at the time her campaign was said to be gaining traction. What we discover is that the campaign approach they took not only says a lot about Kamala Harris, but a great deal about the claimed vigour of supporters towards her.
JUXTAPOSING THE VICE PRESIDENT PICKS: VANCE V. WALZ
And now onto our main discussion. And a massive development in campaign strategies is the VP pick. 48 hours after being shot through the ear at a campaign event, Donald Trump proceeded to announce J.D. Vance as his running mate at the RNC this year. The most significant critique that the left wing media could give on Vance is that there was a time he was not a Trump supporter, and that he has a more hardline stance on abortion, in comparison to Trump, which is that Vance does not believe in the exceptions.
Let’s start with the former, and yes, years before being a staunch ally of President Trump, Mr. Vance wrote an op-ed in the New York Times in which he called the former president “unfit for our nation’s highest office.” But, since 2016, Senator Vance said his views on president Trump have changed, and he’s recanted his statements from 2016. The reason for this, he said, was seeing how president Trump handled the job. In a May interview with CNN, he told anchor Dana Bash that he didn’t think Trump was going to be a good president, and was very, very proud to be proven wrong. In fact, JD Vance even further voted for Trump in 2020.
So, in pointing out that JD Vance was not always a Trump supporter, all that the left wing media has done is validated why Trump is such a popular candidate in the present, and why the 2020 election results are so disputed. Even in this election, many people say they are not won by Trump’s charisma but are nevertheless voting for him because of his proven efficacy in office.
The second controversy is in relation to JD Vance’s expressed sentiments on abortion in the cases deemed to be exceptions, like rape and incest, saying two wrongs do not make a right. First, Vance is entitled to his opinion on the matter, as is everyone, and it is not as extreme as people make it out to be. For instance, if people choose to have an incestrous relationship, why should there be a legislated entitlement for them to kill the child that did not choose to be conceived? HOWEVER, this is not even what Vance promulgates as the abortion policy he supports.
 JD Vance echoes the sentiments of President Trump on abortion, which is primarily support for the overturning of Roe v. Wade to allow states to individually decide abortion laws. Secondly, in articulating this view JD Vance further expresses concession to exceptions, while also generally emphasising that states need to take a preemptive approach that supports women enough not to think getting an abortion is the only means available for them, while emphasising pro-family values and policies and he especially hammers on this! So, JD Vance, is not the tyranny trying to ban abortion that the left tries to paint him as after all!
However, controversy followed the Harris-Walz ticket from the start, as information came to the front about Tim Walz. Last time we discussed Tim Walz’s concerning record as governor and his stolen valour, which brings his leadership to question. Among this includes the fact that he fueled George Floyd riots, delayed National Guard deployment; he called Trump supporters “fascists” after assassination attempt; he championed extreme trans surgery and abortion laws; he oversaw $250 million COVID fraud fiasco related funds; he has been Pelosi’s yes-man in Congress; and is a radical open borders advocate. In fact, Republican Minnesota State Representative and GOP Minority Leader Lisa Demuth spoke about what it’s generally been like working with Gov. Tim Walz.
And in addition to this, Tim Walz lied about his military service and military accolades, which is said to amount to stolen valour. For some context, stolen valour is an actual offence. In the US, the Stolen Valor Act of 2013 was signed by President Barack Obama on June 3, 2013. The Act makes it a federal crime to fraudulently claim to be a recipient of certain military decorations or medals in order to obtain money, property, or other tangible benefit.
Meanwhile the lamestream media is already at work trying to clean up after the Harris-Walz ticket, because they recently released an article claiming that Tim Walz misspoke about his military service. But, on multiple times? Tim Walz is caught on different occasions making exaggerated claims about his service, surely he should have corrected himself. And so, again, the same CNN that claimed Trump fell on stage when he was shot at will take creative liberties in covering up for a democrat candidate.
THE BATTLE OF THE STREAMERS IN THE AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN
Another matter that we ought to look at as far as campaigns are concerned is the attempt to reach a younger demographic. Now, quirky moments inevitably appear during elections; which is not a problem at all. For instance the comical discussion on who likes diet Mountain Dew more between JD Vance and Tim Wlalz has been one of them during this particular presidential election in the US. However, a phenomenon more concerning is the incorporation of streamers in the campaign strategy, particularly the extent that Democrats are going.
For some context, during a livestream from Mar-a-Lago, on the 5th of August, streamer Adin Ross interviewed Donald Trump and even gave him an expensive watch and a Tesla Cybertruck wrapped in a photograph of the former president taken moments after a gunman shot him at a rally in Pennsylvania last month. Trump’s campaign has since said that it will seek guidance from the Federal Election Commission on how to handle the gifts. The internet celebrity who hosted Trump, Adin Ross, has not publicly commented on the gifts in relation to campaign finance laws, which limit individuals’ contributions to political candidates they support to $3,300 – far below the value of the truck and watch.
Adin Ross, who is a 23-year-old professional video game streamer, gained popularity by hosting interviews of figures on the right, showing a conservative inclination himself. This means, of course, that in the mainstream media he is typically portrayed as a far-right figure with offensive views. And so, when he had a live stream with Donald Trump, it was mostly problematised, either based on injections to the character or political inclinations of his past guests, or even his promulgated beliefs (in other words, his exercise of the freedom to speak freely). In any case, the actual and underlying reason this stream was problematised is its popularity, and the demographic that Trump reached through Adin Ross, which is primarily millions of young adult males, who are already regarded as being more conservatively inclined.
Secondly, this stream being encouraged by Trump’s youngest son and the fact that it makes him appear even less disconnected with the younger voter base, is an obvious challenge to the Democrats who have tried to capitalise on his age – now that they instituted a coup to remove Joe Biden. And this is especially because Trump was discussing actual policy or politics related matters like the corruption of the school system or even making reference to Kamala Harris’ record as well.
However, in response to what was obviously a successful campaign strategy to capitalise on streamers, the Kamala Harris campaign has taken disturbing actions. First, Kamala Harris through the secret service is calling streamers asking them to host her on their platforms. However, in contrast, Trump was asked to have this interview, and further persuaded by his youngest son to do it. But, the Harris campaign did not stop there, they are not only calling streamers to invite Harris, they have launched a campaign strategy that involves paying them to essentially endorse her. The amounts being offered have been reported as either being as low as $1500 to close to a half a million dollars per influencer! Needless to say, people are not happy about being called at random, and being asked to fabricate political involvement or support for Kamala Harris.
But, this is where it gets even more concerning. Kamala Harris’s campaign team has also incorporated a plan to reach out to producers obscene content. One of them who was reached out to offered a detailed account of what is requested and the nature of the transaction. Curiously, while her campaign reaches out to video game streamers to invite her to discuss politics, she is reaching out to producers of obscene content to speak poorly about Trump; there are literal discussion points.
Let’s discuss the obvious issues with this approach for the Kamala Harris campaign. As was previously alluded to, the Kamala Harris campaign is promoting division and polarisation as a part of their campaign. This is to say, they are not trying to compete against Trump based on policy differences, but rather polarisation among citizens. It is disturbing that a candidate who is running for the president of the US is trying to divide and conquer the people she is supposed to receive the governing mandate from. This serves as additional proof of Kamala’s incapacity to lead – beyond her absence as Vice President or even her failure to address the Southern Border Crisis.
And to say she uses division is not a mere hyperbole or “reading too much” into her approach to target streamers. The Harris campaign has segregated meetings, like white women for Kamala Harris or black women for Kamala Harris. And as you would have already guessed, this particular campaign strategy is premised on capitalising on woke identity politics, that border or condensation and racism.
This is what is actually weird. Once again, woke politics are what is actually very extreme. Because how is it racist to correct someone or potentially talk over them?! At best it is rude or disrespectful, but it is not intrinsically a manifestation of hatred on the basis of skin colour.
KAMALA’S CAMPAIGN TRICK: BUILDING FALSE BUY-IN THROUGH CELEBRITY APPEARANCES
But, secondly, the Kamala campaign strategy also incorporated the use of celebrities to draw crowds, which optically translates to large numbers. But, optics and fabricated participation is not the only problem with this. More specifically, the nature of the musicians that are called for the performances is also appalling when you consider the obscene nature of their performances and music, like the one that took place in Atlanta. This is to say that Kamala Harris is playing on a disastrous cultural and moral decay, as opposed to correcting it. However, this is consistent with what has marked her vice presidency and the Biden and Harris administration, with transgender hires and invitations to the white house, ending up in more obscene conduct.
But, what this does, is that it de-mystifies Kamala Harris’s alleged “growing support”. It was very suspicious that a candidate who was not even going to win the primaries based on her low popularity (with the Democrat party itself) was suddenly placed as the presidential nominee with no vote cast for her – how was she going to win the support that she already did not have? Well, it appears by largely manufacturing it – which is something that Kari Lake spoke on as well during her campaign for the Senate.
But, you can only go so far in manufacturing support for what was an objectively unpopular candidate, and when the attitudes of people in society do not match up with the projected numbers, it presents a notable disconnect. But, this brings us to what I stated in our last discussion regarding Kamala Harris’ campaign and VP pick, which is that Kamala Harris is clearly not the consensus pick of the Democratic party for the presidency. We know this because no voter ever cast a ballot for her in the primary.
Moreover, her appearance in the race is entirely inorganic—she is the product of Democrat insiders deposing the sitting president from running again for an office he very much insisted he would hang onto. In fact, right before the coup that was instituted to remove Biden, he and his campaign officer were promulgating that he is adamant on staying in the race. And so, Kamala Harris is not a legitimate candidate for President. She is not popular. She is not inspiring. She has no base of support, and she has no cogent policy proposals to better the United States – in addition to having little to no grasp of national politics.