Does Harris Need More Battleground State Visits?

Political science research shows that, generally speaking, swing state campaign visits don't affect the final vote count.

Last Thursday, I argued that Donald Trump was waging his "Laziest Campaign" with far fewer swing state events on his early-to-mid-September schedule this year than his two prior campaigns.

This week, Trump's dance card is full.

The last two days featured rallies in Pennsylvania and Georgia, plus a Keystone State farm policy roundtable. He's set to speak in North Carolina today. Friday, he has both a rally and a town hall in Michigan, and he caps the week with a Saturday rally in Wisconsin. Five critical states in six days.

Moreover, Kamala Harris has less time out on the hustings planned for this week. She hasn't been in a swing state since holding rallies in Wisconsin and Georgia last Friday. She speaks in Pennsylvania today, Arizona Friday, and Nevada Sunday.

Does this mean Harris is getting outworked? Is she making a tactical error by going light on rallies?

I would not jump to that conclusion.

But first, here's what's leading the Washington Monthly website:

***

Idea for Harris: An Opportunity Agenda for Gen X: Contributing Editor Anne Kim proposes an eldercare tax credit, a federal 401(k) matching program, long-term care insurance, and financial aid for adult students. Click here for the full story.

Kamala’s Path To Victory Goes Through Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania: Contributing Editor Jonathan Alter conducts a deep dive into Keystone State polling. Click here for the full story.

What Is Going on With Georgia’s Board of Elections?: James D. Zirin, former federal prosecutor, explores why the Republican-controlled agency is suddenly trying to mandate the hand-counting of ballots. Click here for the full story.

***

While I did mock Trump's light schedule to date in my Thursday column, I also noted that political science research shows that, generally speaking, swing state campaign visits don't affect the final vote count.

But there are exceptions to the rule. One study of the 2016 campaign found Hillary Clinton got a positive bump in the Pennsylvania counties she visited, but not anywhere else.

Using the logic of doing-something-is-better-than-doing-nothing, one can argue that presidential candidates should load up their schedules with as many swing state visits as possible, just in case they might help eke out a close contest in a particular state.

But the choices of how to spend a candidate's time range far wider than "do a rally" or "do nothing."

Candidates can do interviews—national or local; TV, radio, online video, or podcast. They can shoot ads. They can host fundraisers. They can prepare new policy rollouts.

Golfing on a Sunday, as Trump is known to do, is not a good use of a candidate's time. Last Sunday, Harris participated in a New York fundraiser that brought in $27 million.

Is raising gobs of money more helpful than a swing state visit? That's not a question that can be definitively answered—sometimes the candidate with the most money loses. But raising money is not a waste of a candidate's time.

On Monday, Harris sat for an interview with Wisconsin Public Radio, which aired today. So even though she wasn't physically in Wisconsin, she still drove news coverage in the state.

Quantity of swing state visits may not matter as much as quality—again, the research indicates that only in exceptional circumstances do campaign appearances move the needle.

Many of Trump's rallies drive news coverage, but not necessarily the kind of coverage Trump is seeking. Trump often makes news with unsettling comments made during unscripted rambling.

Harris is making fewer swing state appearances this week, but the appearances will likely involve more preparation in order to produce more intentional media coverage. Tomorrow's speech in Pennsylvania will reportedly include new economic policy proposals. Friday's visit to Arizona may include a trip to the Mexican border, part of Harris's strategy to flip the script on the immigration issue.

Furthermore, campaigns do things separate from the candidate—most importantly, organizing a field army to gin up turnout.

As I have repeatedly noted, many Republicans are worried that Trump has botched the ground game by outsourcing it to a network of fly-by-night conservative organizations. Another such report came from the Associated Press on Sunday: "dozens of Republican officials, activists and operatives in Michigan, North Carolina and other battleground states say they have rarely or never witnessed the group’s canvassers."

By all accounts, the Harris campaign has a much bigger GOTV operation. As with swing state visits, political science research finds GOTV activity has a very small impact on election results at best—perhaps no more than one percentage point. But in a tight race, that could be enough.

To sum it all up, I wouldn't judge the energy level of a campaign strictly based on the number of the candidate's swing state appearances.

As I wrote Thursday, I did think it was notable that Trump's number of appearances this year was much less than in his past campaigns. But knocking the Trump campaign as lazy wouldn't be fair if the reduced appearances were part of a deliberate strategy to use the candidate's time in a more effective way.

I have no evidence that is the case, whereas I do have evidence that the entire Trump campaign is premised on a half-baked GOTV strategy.

Harris may not be breaking any whistle-stop campaign trail records. But she appears to be handling her campaign appearances like her debates—deserving of careful preparation even if that means less time on the trail.

FIND THE MONTHLY ON SOCIAL

We're on Twitter @monthly

We're on Threads @WAMonthly

We're on Instagram @WAMonthly

We're on Facebook @WashingtonMonthly

Best,

Bill Scher, Washington Monthly politics editor