‘Trump Has Provided Her with a Major Opportunity’

Kamala Harris has an opportunity to campaign on an issue traditionally viewed as Donald Trump's stronghold: the economy. This perspective comes from James Carville, the strategist who famously aided Bill Clinton in winning the presidency with a similar focus back in 1992. Carville argues that Trump “has given her a giant opening” by suggesting that voters “have nothing to lose” financially by supporting him. Carville believes Harris should counter this narrative by presenting an alternative message:

“He thinks you have nothing to lose. I think you have something to gain. I think most of you feel like you're pretty secure in your jobs. If you have a little bit in your IRA, you’ve got a little bit more now. You’ve got something to lose.”

At 79, Carville is a prominent voice in podcasts, television, and print as he shares his candid views on the upcoming 2024 election. He has actively participated in efforts to encourage Joe Biden to step aside and has been outspoken against certain leftist elements within the Democratic Party. A new documentary titled “Winning is Everything, Stupid,” which showcases Carville’s insights, will premiere on CNN on October 5. Our discussion for the Playbook Deep Dive podcast focused on his thoughts about the election's upcoming challenges.

I spoke with Carville on Thursday about his predictions for the upcoming election, lessons Democrats might learn from Trump’s style, and his curious remarks about the influence of “preachy females” within the Democratic Party's culture.

This conversation has been edited for length and clarity by Deep Dive Producer Kara Tabor and Senior Producer Alex Keeney. You can listen to the entire interview on the Playbook Deep Dive podcast.

Let's talk about the race here. James, where do you think we stand right now?

I can remember a past you can’t, but we can both reflect on the politics of the 21st century. In only one election, 2008, did we know who would win ahead of time. I’m reluctant to make predictions, but I can say this: If there are seven swing states, the most improbable outcome is for them to split four-three.

Do you believe it's more apt to swing decisively one way or the other?

I do think, at the end of the day, one candidate will likely perform much better than the other. Polling can sometimes miss that dynamic.

That’s interesting because I recall you on CNN during election night in 2002 when Republicans made significant gains in competitive Senate races. It underscored your point about swing states not always aligning evenly.

Indeed, I put a trash can over my head that night.

That's a memorable visual.

It certainly drives the point home.

What’s crucial to remember is that polling has its limitations. The way Harris approaches the economy will be fundamental. I believe Trump has provided her with a substantial opportunity.

In American presidential politics, the tricky challenge is identifying when you can take credit for economic conditions. During the ’90s, the economy was thriving, but we faced challenges in 1994 when average voters hadn’t yet experienced the recovery's benefits.

I receive frequent messages highlighting economic growth. But if you try to convince people that the economy is better than they believe, you’re likely to lose that argument.

However, Trump did not claim that “the economy is sluggish” or “prices are too high." Instead, he asserted that “you have nothing to lose” because “the whole thing has fallen apart.”

People often feel that they have something to lose. Trump has shifted the conversation from discussing the economy’s performance to suggesting a dire state where you “have nothing to lose.” This transition is significant because it frees Harris from the burden of proving that the economy is in better shape than perceived. Instead, she can counter by highlighting:

“He thinks you have nothing to lose. I think you have something to gain... you’ve got something to lose.”

If she frames it this way and continuously echoes Trump’s statements about voters having nothing to lose, it shouldn't be a tough sell for her.

Moving on to the comparison between Harris and Biden, clearly, the economic messaging was key to Biden's campaign. How does Harris's approach differ from Biden's, in your view?

First and foremost, she's 25 years younger, and that’s a compelling advantage. I’ve heard from numerous focus groups and research indicating that voters often don’t associate Biden with the economy due to his age. They might even think, “How could he be responsible for inflation? He’s too old to impact it.”

You can't attribute blame on one side or credit on the other.

Harris has been more effective by framing the argument not as “the economy is better than you think,” but rather affirming, “we think you have got something and you can do better.” This approach contrasts with Trump, who paints an image of despair.

Regarding a sensitive topic, you often advocate for Democrats to scale back identity politics. For a candidate like Harris, there’s a challenge in balancing her identity as a Black woman while still engaging a broader electorate. Do you believe her campaign is handling this balance effectively?

I completely support her strategy. It’s clear she’s a woman; that’s visually apparent.

The specific nuances of her racial identity might not be as obvious, but most can tell she is not Caucasian, so it’s unnecessary to overstate that.

Do you think this approach deviates from some of the messaging employed by white Democratic candidates?

Absolutely. It's clear to most what someone’s race is. Pollsters often don’t even solicit race-related identities as responses nowadays, especially in diverse areas like metropolitan Atlanta or Fort Bend County, Texas, which is a positive shift.

Is Harris actively downplaying identity in her campaign?

Yes, she doesn’t push that narrative.

In your documentary, you state that “Democrats spend too much time trying to change the dictionary rather than changing minds.” Would you categorize that as your anti-woke slogan?

Indeed, identity politics has minimal popularity among voters. Only twelve percent of the Democratic Party identifies as “progressive liberal.” And while I truly consider myself a liberal, the terms being used are often disconnected from the beliefs of voters.

We often adopt language that people don’t resonate with. I remind the identity politics community that I share their goals. If they genuinely want to promote opportunity for everyone and ensure wealthier individuals contribute a fair share of taxes to uplift the less fortunate, I’m entirely on board. But why not express that in common terms?

Take my experiences living in New Orleans; I interact with Black individuals as much as anyone in media. If I greeted three people at the store with, “How are things in the community of color?” they’d likely respond, “What’s this son of a bitch talking about?”

The term “communities of color” can be problematic because it inaccurately homogenizes everyone who isn’t white and comes off as patronizing.

You’ve had extensive engagement with various factions within the Democratic Party. Has any compelling argument from the more progressive side caused you to reconsider your stance on identity politics?

Historically, being a member of the Democratic Party has meant participating in a coalition. We've practiced coalition politics more effectively than our counterparts. If coalition members feel entirely comfortable and in agreement, they're likely not in a true coalition. Some discomfort within a coalition is inherent.

Our coalition ranges from Dick Cheney to Pramila Jayapal, which means conflicts are bound to arise. However, resolutions for these contradictions should occur post-election, not before.

Formerly, Bernie Sanders emphasized the importance of the debate over winning elections, but I believe the priority should be winning first and debating afterward.

With each coalition member wanting to secure promises ahead of elections, it raises the issue of why such debates must unfold before elections.

That’s a valid concern. I understand the interest groups well. Sometimes, they would align with candidates and say, “Forget about the activist community.” Active participation from interest groups can be excessive during campaigns. Campaign managers need to focus solely on winning elections. Afterward, they can bring interest groups back to the table for discussions about appointments or legislative action.

Until recently, many Democrats felt elevated by their values — more tolerant, more educated, better-informed. Yet they’d consistently lose elections because the electorate wasn’t ready for their view of the world. That mindset is misguided.

Numerous Democrats in the past have lamented over candidates like Dukakis or Kerry — fine individuals, to be sure — but it’s of little value if they don’t win. Politics should not be about individual superiority; it’s about securing electoral victory.

In the documentary, you address effective salesmanship in politics. How can Kamala Harris apply some of this “hucksterism” to her campaign?

My mother once sold encyclopedias, so I have a positive view of “hucksterism.”

While some view it negatively, I see it as a genuine skill in salesmanship. Many people wish to solely focus on policy, but without a successful sales approach, achieving victory becomes impossible. There’s a dangerous misconception in politics regarding effective selling, which is critical.

Campaigns are not decided by editorial board members; they hinge on salesmanship.

What about your views on Louisiana Republicans, particularly Mike Johnson, with whom you seem to have some differences?

I know various Republicans, including Johnson, though I wouldn’t claim to know him well. I created a YouTube video about him that gained around 800,000 views.

Many on the far right stem from the Baton Rouge area, and there are influential figures like Rod Dreher, who has shaped Johnson. While I suspect he holds some peculiar beliefs, he also believes in fossil fuels and seems unable to reconcile some of these ideological contrasts.

Didn’t you mention that Johnson has governed as speaker without adhering strictly to far-right agendas?

That’s a fair observation. He tries to accommodate various views but ultimately navigates significant issues, like government funding and overall presidential responsibilities, successfully.

I should also ask about Governor Tim Walz. You had an engaging discussion with Governor Josh Shapiro where he referenced your famous observation that Pennsylvania resembles “Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, with Alabama in between." Is that correct?

The original quote is, “From Paoli to Penn Hills, it's Alabama without Black people,” where Paoli refers to a Philadelphia suburb and Penn Hills to a Pittsburgh suburb.

That’s a compelling statement! Have you always framed it that way?

Yes, the initial phrasing has remained intact, though it’s often shortened. Those from Pennsylvania tend to resonate with it.

Shapiro explained he took offense, right?

If he felt that way, so be it. He performs extremely well in that region of the state.

You're sticking by your perspective despite his input?

Absolutely. I believe strong imagery helps convey ideas effectively. A complex legislative explanation would go over most people's heads.

George Orwell emphasized the importance of vivid imagery in effective communication. If I express a sentiment about Democrats failing to connect with male voters by stating there are “too many preachy females” in the party, it clearly communicates my point.

Many assert that such a remark can be perceived as sexist. Do you believe it was appropriate, or do you owe anyone an apology for that?

I achieved my goal, and it’s provoking discussion, which was intentional. I aimed to highlight how Democratic messaging often feels over-feminized, which can alienate certain voters.

Was your expression exaggerated? Sure, but that was by design. It's ridiculous to suggest I wouldn't understand the impact of my words. It was a deliberate choice, and I stand by it. I feel Harris's team recognized a similar challenge and decided to seek out candidates with traditional male characteristics, like a soldier or football coach.

Do you believe that was a strategic success?

Personally, I would have preferred someone like Josh Shapiro or Andy Beshear due to our friendship, but I understand the rationale behind her choice. She wanted to avoid another coastal figure, addressing a party issue, and opted for someone perceived as more relatable and grounded.

Yes, the perception of coastal elitism remains a challenge. Those in coastal areas often misread their reception in the broader country and the arrogance felt by many outside urban areas.

Please tune in to the Playbook Deep Dive episode on Apple, Spotify, or your preferred podcast platform for further insights.

Camille Lefevre contributed to this report for TROIB News