In the current political landscape, both Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump are positioning themselves as candidates representing change as the 2024 election approaches. A recent New York Times/Sienna College poll reveals that Harris slightly edges out Trump, 46% to 44%, in the perception of who embodies change among voters. This contrast comes at a time when just 22% of Americans express satisfaction with the state of the nation. However, both candidates face significant challenges in defining what change means in the context of their respective campaigns, particularly given their links to the current and past administrations.
Harris’s campaign is marked by her slogan “We’re Not Going Back,” which she invokes to establish herself as a transformative leader. In a recent interview on “The View,” she was queried about how her approach might differ from President Biden’s, to which she responded that there was nothing she would change about their joint decisions. This stance creates a complicated dynamic for her, as she seeks to differentiate herself from Biden while simultaneously maintaining loyalty to the administration. Despite this, Harris has made waves with new policy proposals, such as expanding Medicare benefits for home health care, indicating that she is thinking about future changes even as she acknowledges her past affiliations.
The necessity for Harris to distinguish herself from Biden raises concerns among voters about continuity versus genuine change. Data from an ABC/Ipsos poll highlights that a substantial 74% of voters from both parties are interested in seeing Harris take a new direction rather than perpetuate Biden’s policies. However, a significant portion of the electorate—65%—believes she would actually continue the existing policies, which suggests a potential obstacle to her appeal as a candidate of change. Harris’s relative youth compared to her predecessors offers a visual contrast that might draw some voters, but she still grapples with the perception of being tied to Biden’s administration.
On the other hand, Trump’s attempt to cast himself as a change candidate is equally fraught with challenges. In his recent Fox News interview, Trump was asked about restoring faith in the U.S. justice system amidst accusations of seeking revenge on political adversaries. His responses indicate a willingness to use government institutions for power, which echoes themes from his previous administration. He seems to be banking on nostalgia for his past presidency and an appeal to the frustrations many hold about the current political climate. Promising to enact larger tariffs, tax cuts, and an expansive deportation program, Trump is leaning heavily into his previous policy positions rather than presenting new visions.
Moreover, Trump’s slogan “Make America Great Again” continues to reference an undefined idealized past, which may resonate with his base but could be limiting. Recent polling data reflect a skepticism among voters regarding his capacity for meaningful change if elected for a second term; 53% of poll respondents expressed a desire for him to alter his governing approach, while only 33% felt he would do so. This disillusionment underscores a deeper mistrust among voters, suggesting that while Trump may claim to be a catalyst for change, many are doubtful of his intentions and ability to transform.
Both candidates—Harris and Trump—find themselves at a critical intersection of political identity and public perception. Voters are clearly seeking change, yet there exists an overarching hesitation about the authenticity of that change when both candidates come from unpopular historical contexts. This tension plays a significant role in shaping the upcoming election, as citizens await clarity on what change means and how it will manifest in their potential leadership. Will they ultimately back leaders who seem less likely to upset the status quo, or will they embrace the chaos of potential transformation?
As the 2024 election nears, the clarity regarding what constitutes change for voters remains elusive. The competing narratives of both Harris and Trump reflect a larger dilemma in American politics where dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs collides with a desire for continuity and stability. With historical precedents hanging heavily over them, both candidates must navigate the complex landscape of voter expectations while attempting to carve out distinct identities that resonate with a politically fatigued electorate yearning for something new. As discussions evolve, the question remains: can these leaders effectively pivot the narrative toward true change or will they remain mired in the challenges posed by their pasts and connections to less-popular administrations?