‘The Essential Action for the Harris Campaign’
An experienced Democratic strategist shares insights on how the campaign should navigate the concluding phase of the race.
TroibNews 
In various aspects, Kamala Harris is experiencing a significant upswing. She has effectively garnered the support of the Democratic Party following a contentious internal campaign to unseat Joe Biden, navigated through the Democratic National Convention with success, and notably triumphed in her initial debate against Donald Trump.
However, with Election Day still more than 50 days away, the landscape remains challenging for a candidate dealing with genuine political vulnerabilities while facing a formidable opponent in a fiercely competitive race. What strategies can Harris and her team employ to sustain her momentum as November approaches?
To address this question, PMG Magazine consulted Guy Cecil, the experienced Democratic strategist and former head of the Democratic super PAC Priorities USA.
His key takeaway for Harris' campaign? Ensure that voters are aware of the election's potential closeness despite the positive sentiments currently surrounding the campaign.
“The most important thing that the Harris campaign can do — which I think they are doing — is building an operation and executing a plan that assumes it’s going to be a close election,” Cecil said.
Cecil also offered a succinct message to Democrats who are anxious that Harris hasn’t sufficiently differentiated herself from Biden on policy: Relax.
“I think these are parlor games — it’s not really how the American people process information,” he stated. “As long as we keep the focus on drawing the contrast with Trump, I think she’s going to win.”
The following has been edited for brevity and clarity.
How would you evaluate Harris’ position in the race following this week's debate?
I think it’s hard to imagine that the debate could have gone any better. She had three main objectives: First, to prove she could perform at a presidential level. Second, to provide concrete details, especially regarding the economy, which remains a crucial concern for many Americans, while exhibiting strength in national security. Lastly, she needed to unveil Trump's character, which she did throughout the debate.
In terms of what candidates hope to achieve in debates — energizing their base and appealing to undecided voters — I believe she succeeded remarkably in both areas.
Do you think this will have a long-term impact on the race, or will it just provide a temporary boost for Democrats?
I don’t see it as a brief boost. Rather, Kamala Harris is merely continuing to introduce herself to the nation, and it’s challenging to recall a candidate facing so many pivotal moments in recent history. She has navigated speculation regarding President Biden, rallied support for her nomination, made her choice of Tim Walz, delivered a strong convention speech, and excelled in the debate.
Each time, she has performed well, and I don’t believe any single moment will shift the election dramatically. Excelling rather than merely checking boxes has set her up for success. It’s not just a sugar high; it’s about consistently demonstrating she is ready for the presidency while showcasing that he is not.
That said, the race is still very close if the polls are accurate. If you were advising Harris and her team right now, what would be the focus?
The first priority — and I believe they’re doing a commendable job — is managing expectations.
[Campaign chair] Jen O’Malley Dillon has underscored this in her recent memos, and Harris has echoed this in her speeches. It will be a close election; we narrowly lost in 2016 and won by a slim margin in 2020, and the country remains divided. The Harris campaign's most crucial task — which I believe they are undertaking — is to construct and implement a plan that anticipates a tight contest.
This may seem obvious, but when you examine the ground operation of the Harris campaign versus the Trump campaign, the discrepancies in staff numbers, volunteer engagement, office presence, and voter outreach efforts are striking. It’s essential to concentrate on critical factors — building a robust operation, executing a turnout initiative, and maintaining interest among both Democratic voters and the few undecided ones.
Another important aspect is continuing to intertwine her policy ideas with her personal narrative. I think she successfully addressed this during her convention speech and in the debate, and her ongoing success will hinge on effectively merging these elements, allowing people to connect with her as both a person and a policymaker. Most presidential candidates don’t face the challenge of doing this concurrently, but she has managed it well.
Polling indicates voters still seek more insight into her policy plans — particularly undecided voters who feel uninformed about her agenda. How can she better inform those voters?
First, it's reasonable to expect this, given the context. Joe Biden has been on the national stage for decades, and Donald Trump for several years. Any vice president, even one who has had a more extended presence than Kamala, often needs to reintroduce themselves when stepping into the candidate spotlight for the first time.
It's unrealistic to assume that every single policy will be unveiled within eight weeks of becoming their party's nominee. That said, she must continue to articulate her plans. She has already presented a substantial economic agenda, especially addressing everyday Americans' rental costs. She has also articulated a strong stance on reproductive rights. Additionally, she began to delve deeper into national security issues during the debate, and I anticipate she will continue to draw a clear distinction between her views and Trump’s — reframing what he sees as a strength into a weakness.
I don’t find it surprising — nor alarming — that people want to know more. It seems entirely normal for Americans to desire further clarification, and I believe the Harris campaign recognizes this and will persist in unveiling these agenda items on issues that matter.
But should there be changes to the pacing or tone of these policy announcements?
I don’t believe there's a need to alter the tone or pace; they have actually accelerated. Consider the economic agenda she unveiled a few weeks ago, or the stance on reproductive rights shortly after her announcement. She has begun discussing immigration policies and has consistently been releasing new policy proposals weekly since entering the race. This steady flow seems appropriate for the remainder of the campaign cycle.
Another persistent concern appears to be that she is perceived as a continuation of the Biden administration and its policies, with her efforts to establish a distinction seemingly not resonating. Should she take more dramatic steps to highlight this difference?
I regard it less as ‘Is she separating from Joe Biden or continuing on his path?’ What I recognize is that Kamala Harris is evidently her own person, with a unique background and perspective. She has introduced policy proposals not included in the Biden agenda. The expectation that she will shift to a conservative stance or adopt a Trumpian approach is unfounded.
She should persist in rolling out her agenda. It’s not merely about what Biden would do or could do; we are now in the realm of the Harris campaign and her agenda. I believe she has managed this transition well. While she has served as vice president, was part of his ticket, and is part of his administration, she will not radically pivot but instead offer her own vision.
This is how I interpret the situation. I don’t think Americans frame their thoughts about this in terms of Joe Biden. They are considering what Kamala Harris will do in the next four years versus Donald Trump. As long as we maintain a focus on contrasting her with Trump, I predict she will prevail.
However, Republicans appear keen on framing the narrative as ‘She’s merely continuing Biden’s policies.’ Is there no merit — strictly in terms of political optics — in her making a grand gesture to sidestep that association?
Democrats have been making the argument that Donald Trump represents a continuation of his own policies while attempting to distance himself from his past agenda. An example is his vague discussion surrounding abortion during the debate, where he sidestepped questions about a potential national abortion ban. In contrast, Kamala addresses inquiries straightforwardly.
I doubt this election will hinge on whether Harris articulates a single policy shift as a political statement. Victory will come from her rolling out an agenda — her agenda — and distinctly contrasting it with Donald Trump’s. Having participated in Senate races for two decades, I remember the difficulty of finding differentiators in races where opposing parties had won the presidential contest. Where differentiation exists, she should articulate it; where it doesn't, she should be clear about that as well.
I question the political necessity of any overt break with Biden. Voters can perceive and comprehend her proposals, understanding that she is not Joe Biden, but both represent the Democratic Party.
Where does that differentiation exist?
Joe Biden lacked a specific plan to address renters in the same manner that Harris does. Should that be seen as a departure from Biden or a continuation? That’s for interpretation. She has proposed alternative tax policies compared to Biden’s agenda; while retaining similar values, her approach is distinct. Is that considered a continuation of Biden's policies simply because she aims to reduce taxes for the middle class and working families while increasing taxes on billionaires and large corporations?
I believe these discussions are superficial; it’s not how most Americans process information.
This naturally leads to the question: Do you think her media strategy is effective? Is she generating enough opportunities to illustrate these distinctions?
Are you referring to paid media or earned media?
I mean public engagements, like sit-down interviews. She has only participated in one extensive interview with a cable news channel and has maintained a relatively low profile otherwise. Should she engage in more of this type of outreach to clarify the points you suggest she should emphasize?
I would welcome more interviews from the Harris campaign. Her last interview was exceptional. However, I wouldn’t agree with the notion that she’s keeping a low profile. Since winning the nomination, she has conducted more public events than Donald Trump. She’s been attending rallies, engaging in official duties, and traveling across the country. If anything, her visibility has surpassed Trump’s. That said, if they want to pursue additional interviews, I think that would benefit her.
I consider one sit-down interview for a presidential contender to be a relatively low media profile, but perhaps that’s a matter of perspective.
You’re viewing media as interviews with outlets. I don’t regard Trump’s appearances with Sean Hannity as legitimate media engagement.
Having spent years managing a Democratic super PAC, Priorities USA, how do you perceive super PACs should operate in the next two months of the race?
Examining the ads from groups like Future Forward, American Bridge, and Priorities, many amplify Harris' messages, utilizing video content from her rallies or underscoring her economic agenda. Focusing on positive narratives for Harris while contrasting them with Trump’s messaging is pivotal — ensuring that the same ad or communication simultaneously presents both candidates' forward-looking agendas. That’s where we need to be in terms of messaging, and I believe they are largely on that path.
There should also be increased investment in organizations closely aligned with this work— groups like BlackPAC, Care in Action, Planned Parenthood, Emily’s List, and Somos Votantes.
These organizations have a national scope but a local focus, and investing more in them would strengthen their efforts to directly connect with Democratic voters and likely supporters. It’s not only important for turnout but also for the crucial final persuasion required for those who may have been hesitant before Harris entered the race.
Overall, it seems you believe things are relatively positive for Harris — that her campaign should continue its current trajectory, leading to favorable outcomes.
I believe both statements hold true. They have been effectively focusing on organization and integrating personal narratives with policy, while also acknowledging that this election will be very close. These points aren’t mutually exclusive, but winning will ultimately depend on presenting a robust, forward-looking contrast with Donald Trump.
One aspect I had doubts about was their capability to genuinely embody the “change” message within this context. Remarkably, they have successfully embraced the narrative of “turning the page” and moving beyond the chaos and turmoil inherent in the Trump message. Accomplishing this as an incumbent administration is no small feat, and I believe they have made the necessary strides to ensure this messaging sticks as the campaign progresses.
Thomas Evans contributed to this report for TROIB News
However, with Election Day still more than 50 days away, the landscape remains challenging for a candidate dealing with genuine political vulnerabilities while facing a formidable opponent in a fiercely competitive race. What strategies can Harris and her team employ to sustain her momentum as November approaches?
To address this question, PMG Magazine consulted Guy Cecil, the experienced Democratic strategist and former head of the Democratic super PAC Priorities USA.
His key takeaway for Harris' campaign? Ensure that voters are aware of the election's potential closeness despite the positive sentiments currently surrounding the campaign.
“The most important thing that the Harris campaign can do — which I think they are doing — is building an operation and executing a plan that assumes it’s going to be a close election,” Cecil said.
Cecil also offered a succinct message to Democrats who are anxious that Harris hasn’t sufficiently differentiated herself from Biden on policy: Relax.
“I think these are parlor games — it’s not really how the American people process information,” he stated. “As long as we keep the focus on drawing the contrast with Trump, I think she’s going to win.”
The following has been edited for brevity and clarity.
How would you evaluate Harris’ position in the race following this week's debate?
I think it’s hard to imagine that the debate could have gone any better. She had three main objectives: First, to prove she could perform at a presidential level. Second, to provide concrete details, especially regarding the economy, which remains a crucial concern for many Americans, while exhibiting strength in national security. Lastly, she needed to unveil Trump's character, which she did throughout the debate.
In terms of what candidates hope to achieve in debates — energizing their base and appealing to undecided voters — I believe she succeeded remarkably in both areas.
Do you think this will have a long-term impact on the race, or will it just provide a temporary boost for Democrats?
I don’t see it as a brief boost. Rather, Kamala Harris is merely continuing to introduce herself to the nation, and it’s challenging to recall a candidate facing so many pivotal moments in recent history. She has navigated speculation regarding President Biden, rallied support for her nomination, made her choice of Tim Walz, delivered a strong convention speech, and excelled in the debate.
Each time, she has performed well, and I don’t believe any single moment will shift the election dramatically. Excelling rather than merely checking boxes has set her up for success. It’s not just a sugar high; it’s about consistently demonstrating she is ready for the presidency while showcasing that he is not.
That said, the race is still very close if the polls are accurate. If you were advising Harris and her team right now, what would be the focus?
The first priority — and I believe they’re doing a commendable job — is managing expectations.
[Campaign chair] Jen O’Malley Dillon has underscored this in her recent memos, and Harris has echoed this in her speeches. It will be a close election; we narrowly lost in 2016 and won by a slim margin in 2020, and the country remains divided. The Harris campaign's most crucial task — which I believe they are undertaking — is to construct and implement a plan that anticipates a tight contest.
This may seem obvious, but when you examine the ground operation of the Harris campaign versus the Trump campaign, the discrepancies in staff numbers, volunteer engagement, office presence, and voter outreach efforts are striking. It’s essential to concentrate on critical factors — building a robust operation, executing a turnout initiative, and maintaining interest among both Democratic voters and the few undecided ones.
Another important aspect is continuing to intertwine her policy ideas with her personal narrative. I think she successfully addressed this during her convention speech and in the debate, and her ongoing success will hinge on effectively merging these elements, allowing people to connect with her as both a person and a policymaker. Most presidential candidates don’t face the challenge of doing this concurrently, but she has managed it well.
Polling indicates voters still seek more insight into her policy plans — particularly undecided voters who feel uninformed about her agenda. How can she better inform those voters?
First, it's reasonable to expect this, given the context. Joe Biden has been on the national stage for decades, and Donald Trump for several years. Any vice president, even one who has had a more extended presence than Kamala, often needs to reintroduce themselves when stepping into the candidate spotlight for the first time.
It's unrealistic to assume that every single policy will be unveiled within eight weeks of becoming their party's nominee. That said, she must continue to articulate her plans. She has already presented a substantial economic agenda, especially addressing everyday Americans' rental costs. She has also articulated a strong stance on reproductive rights. Additionally, she began to delve deeper into national security issues during the debate, and I anticipate she will continue to draw a clear distinction between her views and Trump’s — reframing what he sees as a strength into a weakness.
I don’t find it surprising — nor alarming — that people want to know more. It seems entirely normal for Americans to desire further clarification, and I believe the Harris campaign recognizes this and will persist in unveiling these agenda items on issues that matter.
But should there be changes to the pacing or tone of these policy announcements?
I don’t believe there's a need to alter the tone or pace; they have actually accelerated. Consider the economic agenda she unveiled a few weeks ago, or the stance on reproductive rights shortly after her announcement. She has begun discussing immigration policies and has consistently been releasing new policy proposals weekly since entering the race. This steady flow seems appropriate for the remainder of the campaign cycle.
Another persistent concern appears to be that she is perceived as a continuation of the Biden administration and its policies, with her efforts to establish a distinction seemingly not resonating. Should she take more dramatic steps to highlight this difference?
I regard it less as ‘Is she separating from Joe Biden or continuing on his path?’ What I recognize is that Kamala Harris is evidently her own person, with a unique background and perspective. She has introduced policy proposals not included in the Biden agenda. The expectation that she will shift to a conservative stance or adopt a Trumpian approach is unfounded.
She should persist in rolling out her agenda. It’s not merely about what Biden would do or could do; we are now in the realm of the Harris campaign and her agenda. I believe she has managed this transition well. While she has served as vice president, was part of his ticket, and is part of his administration, she will not radically pivot but instead offer her own vision.
This is how I interpret the situation. I don’t think Americans frame their thoughts about this in terms of Joe Biden. They are considering what Kamala Harris will do in the next four years versus Donald Trump. As long as we maintain a focus on contrasting her with Trump, I predict she will prevail.
However, Republicans appear keen on framing the narrative as ‘She’s merely continuing Biden’s policies.’ Is there no merit — strictly in terms of political optics — in her making a grand gesture to sidestep that association?
Democrats have been making the argument that Donald Trump represents a continuation of his own policies while attempting to distance himself from his past agenda. An example is his vague discussion surrounding abortion during the debate, where he sidestepped questions about a potential national abortion ban. In contrast, Kamala addresses inquiries straightforwardly.
I doubt this election will hinge on whether Harris articulates a single policy shift as a political statement. Victory will come from her rolling out an agenda — her agenda — and distinctly contrasting it with Donald Trump’s. Having participated in Senate races for two decades, I remember the difficulty of finding differentiators in races where opposing parties had won the presidential contest. Where differentiation exists, she should articulate it; where it doesn't, she should be clear about that as well.
I question the political necessity of any overt break with Biden. Voters can perceive and comprehend her proposals, understanding that she is not Joe Biden, but both represent the Democratic Party.
Where does that differentiation exist?
Joe Biden lacked a specific plan to address renters in the same manner that Harris does. Should that be seen as a departure from Biden or a continuation? That’s for interpretation. She has proposed alternative tax policies compared to Biden’s agenda; while retaining similar values, her approach is distinct. Is that considered a continuation of Biden's policies simply because she aims to reduce taxes for the middle class and working families while increasing taxes on billionaires and large corporations?
I believe these discussions are superficial; it’s not how most Americans process information.
This naturally leads to the question: Do you think her media strategy is effective? Is she generating enough opportunities to illustrate these distinctions?
Are you referring to paid media or earned media?
I mean public engagements, like sit-down interviews. She has only participated in one extensive interview with a cable news channel and has maintained a relatively low profile otherwise. Should she engage in more of this type of outreach to clarify the points you suggest she should emphasize?
I would welcome more interviews from the Harris campaign. Her last interview was exceptional. However, I wouldn’t agree with the notion that she’s keeping a low profile. Since winning the nomination, she has conducted more public events than Donald Trump. She’s been attending rallies, engaging in official duties, and traveling across the country. If anything, her visibility has surpassed Trump’s. That said, if they want to pursue additional interviews, I think that would benefit her.
I consider one sit-down interview for a presidential contender to be a relatively low media profile, but perhaps that’s a matter of perspective.
You’re viewing media as interviews with outlets. I don’t regard Trump’s appearances with Sean Hannity as legitimate media engagement.
Having spent years managing a Democratic super PAC, Priorities USA, how do you perceive super PACs should operate in the next two months of the race?
Examining the ads from groups like Future Forward, American Bridge, and Priorities, many amplify Harris' messages, utilizing video content from her rallies or underscoring her economic agenda. Focusing on positive narratives for Harris while contrasting them with Trump’s messaging is pivotal — ensuring that the same ad or communication simultaneously presents both candidates' forward-looking agendas. That’s where we need to be in terms of messaging, and I believe they are largely on that path.
There should also be increased investment in organizations closely aligned with this work— groups like BlackPAC, Care in Action, Planned Parenthood, Emily’s List, and Somos Votantes.
These organizations have a national scope but a local focus, and investing more in them would strengthen their efforts to directly connect with Democratic voters and likely supporters. It’s not only important for turnout but also for the crucial final persuasion required for those who may have been hesitant before Harris entered the race.
Overall, it seems you believe things are relatively positive for Harris — that her campaign should continue its current trajectory, leading to favorable outcomes.
I believe both statements hold true. They have been effectively focusing on organization and integrating personal narratives with policy, while also acknowledging that this election will be very close. These points aren’t mutually exclusive, but winning will ultimately depend on presenting a robust, forward-looking contrast with Donald Trump.
One aspect I had doubts about was their capability to genuinely embody the “change” message within this context. Remarkably, they have successfully embraced the narrative of “turning the page” and moving beyond the chaos and turmoil inherent in the Trump message. Accomplishing this as an incumbent administration is no small feat, and I believe they have made the necessary strides to ensure this messaging sticks as the campaign progresses.
Thomas Evans contributed to this report for TROIB News
