GREGORY RUSOVICH
Guest Writer
rusovich@lbknews.com
Neither the Trump nor the Harris campaign is making any legitimate outreach to win the 
support of centrist, swing voters. Instead, both actually are snubbing this relatively small, but crucial middle. Their singular and insular strategy is to energize and turn out base voters. This decision to give undecided voters the big heave-ho is clearly reflected in the vice-presidential choice of each campaign.
Ignoring centrist swing voters is a relatively new phenomenon in presidential politics. Ron Faucheux, a leading political analyst and pollster, observes, “Historically, parties balanced the interests of reliable loyalists with strong appeals to wider audiences. This forced them to honestly consider the wants and needs of a broader swatch of Americans.” John F. Kennedy chose Lyndon Johnson as his running mate to attract Southerners who had strayed from the Democratic Party. Ronald Reagan picked George H.W. Bush for the No. 2 spot on the GOP ticket specifically to connect to centrist voters. But neither Trump nor Harris shows any inclination to meet historical norms.
Former President Trump had an ideal opportunity to galvanize the center by choosing former U. N. Ambassador Nikki Haley. Such a rational, popular choice would have placed Trump in a commanding position heading into the election. Selecting Senators Marco Rubio or Tim Scott would have helped significantly with Hispanic and Black voters, respectively. Gov. Glenn Youngkin would have provided a boost from suburban moderates. Any of these solid choices could have broadened Trump’s appeal. Instead, Trump chose Ohio Senator J.D. Vance with the clear goal of exciting the base, not expanding it. Forget about the critical 12-15% of persuadable voters. Trump went all in with his populist soulmate.
Trump’s selection of Vance also violated one of the cardinal rules in choosing a vice-president — do no harm. Vance’s ill-advised previous denigration of certain women as “childless cat ladies” placed the campaign on the defensive for several weeks as Democrats and establishment media quickly defined Vance by his comment. He has since gained some traction, but unnecessary damage was done.
Vance’s addition to the Trump ticket also provided an opening for Kamala Harris to show moderation and temperance in her vice-presidential choice. She had a golden opportunity to tag a relative moderate, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro. Instead, she doubled down on her leftist instinct and opted for Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, a cohort who does nothing to expand the base.
It was a doozy of a decision. Walz supported providing driver’s licenses and tuition-free college for illegal immigrants. He dithered over sending the National Guard to Minneapolis during the Black Lives Matters riots in 2020 as fires and violence spread. The former teacher’s union member decried what he dubbed as the school choice “agenda.” (Actually, Governor, it’s a parents’ agenda, as they, not you, should determine the best schools for their children.)
To further demonstrate his woke credentials, Walz signed a bill as governor encouraging access to gender-affirming health care — which can include a range of medical procedures and care such as surgery and puberty blockers — without the intervention of out-of-state laws.
The Harris campaign also failed the cardinal rule. Walz has done harm. He has distorted his National Guard record. He did not carry a gun in combat (as he indicated), and he demonstrated little valor in bolting from his unit shortly before it was deployed to Iraq. In 2018 he praised Muslim cleric Imam Asad Zaman, who previously touted Hitler and more recently refused to condemn the Oct. 7 Hamas terror attacks on Israel. Walz also doled out more than $100,000 in funding to Zaman’s Muslim American Society of Minnesota nonprofit over the years.
This narrow-minded election paradigm not only divides America during campaigns but significantly hinders effective governance. Peggy Noonan said it best in a recent Wall Street Journal column, “I don’t know if this is a shrewd strategy to achieve victory in November, but it strikes me as a signal moment and, in the largest sense, not constructive. When you stick with your side, when it’s all or nothing, you go on and win, to operate in an all-or-nothing style, which in a 50/50 country causes more tension, anger and division…You aren’t persuading the other guy, you’re just overwhelming the other guy. It’s heady and polarizing.”
There are still 80 days before the election. The candidate who is best able to put aside the current myopic strategy will win. Time after time, post-election analysis illustrates how centrist, swing voters shifted to a particular candidate and carried the day. It’s amazing that individuals seeking to lead the free world can’t figure that one out.
