Boasting of Goldman Sachs’ and Dick Cheney’s approval will not win over the working-class voters she needs.
The most pivotal moment of the presidential debate on 10 September occurred midway through the event when Donald Trump was lured into reasserting the false claim that he won the 2020 election. Kamala Harris delivered a sharp retort, stating, “Donald Trump was fired by 81 million people, so let’s be clear about that, and clearly, he is having a very difficult time processing that.” This response undoubtedly defined the debate and underscored Harris’s sharp political instincts.
However, a second, less-discussed moment in the debate may hold the key to understanding why Harris is struggling to win over working-class voters. At the beginning of the debate, she proudly referenced the approval of Goldman Sachs as validation for her economic policies. This moment, seemingly benign to some, raised significant concerns for those who view such endorsements as indicative of a political alignment that does not resonate with the needs of everyday Americans.
This statement reveals the fundamental flaw in Harris’s approach: her embrace of a centrist, establishment-friendly position that seems more concerned with pleasing financial elites than addressing the economic concerns of ordinary workers. Goldman Sachs and Dick Cheney may offer praise, but such endorsements risk alienating the very voters Harris must win over to secure her position in the 2024 election.
While Harris may have won the debate with her powerful response to Trump, her reliance on centrist credentials and corporate endorsements may continue to undermine her ability to connect with the working class. Her political appeal, once based on progressive values, now appears more aligned with the interests of Wall Street than the working people who once looked to her for change.
The new centrist approach Harris is pitching, one that seeks to balance corporate approval with progressive rhetoric, risks misreading the political landscape. As working-class voters grow increasingly disillusioned with the Democratic Party, Harris’s attempts to walk the line between corporate interests and popular demands may fall short.
If Harris is to succeed in 2024, she will need to recalibrate her message and distance herself from the very elites she now courts. Her current trajectory, if left unchecked, could prevent her from securing the support she needs to effectively challenge the political forces rallying behind her opponent, Donald Trump.
The debate showcased Harris’s quick wit and political acumen, but it also exposed the challenges of maintaining a political platform that satisfies both the corporate world and working-class voters—a balancing act that could ultimately define her chances in the 2024 election.
