Photo Courtesy of Lawrence Jackson via Wikimedia Commons
Image description: A professional portrait of Kamala Harris, the Vice President of the United States. She wears a navy blue blazer with a small American flag pin on the lapel, along with a layered pearl necklace. Harris smiles, the lighting highlighting her face. Her shoulder-length hair is neatly styled, and the background features a blurred American flag.
By Paige Comeau ’26
Opinion Editor
Following the Sept. 10 presidential debate broadcast on ABC News, many left-leaning voters were outraged at the strongly moderate or even rightward stances Vice President Kamala Harris took on many key issues. Harris debuted as a Democratic candidate who touts her gun ownership, advances plans to cut taxes and hopes to deregulate government involvement in people’s personal lives. As New York Times columnist Ross Douthat put it, Harris’ current administration is “springtime for neoliberalism,” a political approach that favors free markets and smaller governments; stances that are generally Republican pillars, not Democratic.
Despite the betrayal many Democrats and liberals may be feeling, Harris’ debate performance hardly harmed her polling numbers. In fact, in many traditionally liberal states like California and Maryland, Harris continues to hold a clear lead, with over 60% of eligible voters planning to vote blue.
It is this strange contradiction between public opinion and actual polling numbers that my analysis aims to reconcile. Harris’ strategy of invoking strongly centrist language and policies will work for her rather than against her, despite the anger it invokes in her liberal constituencies.
Some of Harris’ Most Controversial Stances
There are many issues that Harris supports in line with traditional Democratic standards, such as her belief in reproductive rights, government spending on infrastructure and the peaceful transfer of power following presidential election results. There are others, however, where she takes a more conservative or moderate stance. Here are some of her most controversial standpoints, as outlined in the New York Times and further seen in the recent debate.
Climate Change: Harris, like most other Democrats, favors the expansion of the Environmental Protection Agency, regulations on carbon emissions and US involvement in global climate agreements. Unlike many other Democrats, however, Harris does not support a general fracking ban, and hopes to combat climate change without ending the practice. In fact, during the debate, Harris bragged about U.S. oil and gas production, stating, “I am proud that as vice president over the last four years, we have invested a trillion dollars in a clean energy economy while we have also increased domestic gas production to historic levels.”
Economy: Like many Democrats, Harris supports government spending, particularly via bills that will reinforce infrastructure or the American economy. She is also in favor of economic regulations that will support the middle class, like a cap on credit card late fees, which the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is currently pushing. Moreover, like her liberal predecessors, Harris supports the growth, rather than stagnation, of Medicare and Social Security. That being said, Harris supports large tax cuts, which is uncommon amongst Democrats. Further, she supports the instatement of certain tariffs, despite her public criticism of former president and Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s trade policies. In a statement to the New York Times earlier this year, Charles Lutvak, a member of the Harris-Walz campaign, stated that the administration would “employ targeted and strategic tariffs to support American workers, strengthen our economy and hold our adversaries accountable.”
Foreign Policy/National Security: Issues around foreign policy and national security have become increasingly important with the current crises in the Middle East, particularly with the escalation of the Israel-Hamas war. While many leftists and Democrats strongly believe in stopping aid to Israel because of the humanitarian crisis as a result of their attempted genocide in Gaza, Harris has shown herself to be rather centrist on the issue.
According to Asha Castleberry-Hernandez, Mount Holyoke visiting lecturer in international relations and a former member of the Biden-Harris administration as a senior advisor in the state department, “[Harris] underscores the importance of humanity or human rights for the Palestinians and Jewish people who were victims of the October 7th attacks. She believes in supporting security for the State of Israel and expressed support for specific restrictions on capabilities that contribute to the humanitarian crisis. Harris underscores the importance of reinvigorating the two-state solution.”
Gun Control: In the wake of continued school shootings, liberals around the country are aiming for an increase in gun control; some particularly left-leaning Democrats may even be hoping to repeal the ability for the average American to own guns altogether. Nonetheless, while Harris does support harsher gun control, especially in gun purchasing, she does not stand behind any policies that either restrict gun ownership or guns altogether. This was only emphasized during the debate, when Harris stated, in response to a claim made by former President Trump, “And then this business about taking everyone's guns away. Tim Walz and I are both gun owners. We're not taking anybody's guns away. So stop with the continuous lying about this stuff.”
The Appeal To Swing States and Centrist Voters
Looking at the information above, it’s clear that Harris is attempting to take a centrist position on most issues, standing with the Democrats on some points, while leaning towards the right on others. While this sort of half-in, half-out strategy may seem strange and hypocritical to the average observer, it actually makes a lot of sense from a political standpoint. To understand this, it is first crucial to understand the importance of swing states.
Swing states gain their importance from the convoluted American presidential election system, known as the electoral college. Since the electoral college is incredibly complex, this article simplifies the system as follows: Each state gets a certain amount of votes, based on how many senators and representatives are given to said state. These votes, decided by that state’s popular vote, then go toward one presidential candidate; the candidate with the most votes exceeding 270 wins. Notably, the electoral college operates on a winner-takes-all system, which means that whoever wins the popular vote in each state gets all of that state's votes. Because of this, presidential candidates tend to focus their campaign efforts on the states who don’t lean left or right — swing states — since their votes tend to matter the most in deciding who wins.
“Harris’s decision to run a relatively cautious campaign is understandable in a few ways.”
Swing states exist because of centrist voters, who do not lean particularly left or right. Instead, they want a candidate who is willing to look at the issues neutrally, and decide based on what is best for the people. Due to this, Harris needs to show herself as a moderate Democrat, since her political history leans rather left. Essentially, to win over the swing states and the election as a whole, Harris needs to take positions that are a little more conservative than most Democrats.
Mount Holyoke Assistant Professor of Politics Adam Hilton further explained the necessity of Harris’ approach in a statement to Mount Holyoke News. Particularly, Hilton stated that “Harris's decision to run a relatively cautious campaign is understandable in a few ways.”
“First, she must confront the double standards that confront women and people of color who run for public office in the United States,” Hilton said. “Those of us with longer memories might remember that Barack Obama adopted a similar campaign strategy — and, later, a governing style — back in 2008. In addition to her racial and gender identity, Harris is a California democrat that has a public record of taking some quite progressive positions as recently as 2019. She appears to be making an effort to downplay these potential electoral liabilities to insulate herself from the attack that she is too liberal, too coastal, or, as Donald Trump puts it, a ‘Marxist.’”
Capture, the Spoiler Effect, and Democratic Voters
Thus, as explained above, there is ample reason for Harris to play it more centrist during her campaign. This leaves just one more question to be answered: Why do liberal voters still vote for Harris if they are unhappy with her policy choices? The answer to this question lies in two political phenomena: capture, or polarization, and the spoiler effect.
Capture occurs when a movement becomes so synonymous with a certain political party that other parties become hostile and the movement’s demographic loses their ability to move between parties. Since liberal ideas and movements have become entrenched in the Democratic Party, Republicans have become increasingly hostile towards liberals, and joining the Republican Party would be considerably worse for any leftists unhappy with Harris.
Similarly, the spoiler effect, an idea often used to explain third-party despondency in the U.S., is when voters are afraid to “waste” their votes on smaller, unlikely parties in the case that the larger opposing party may win. Due to the spoiler effect, leftists are also unlikely to vote for smaller, more liberal parties like the Green Party, since they believe doing so will allow the Republicans to win, which, as stated above, is considerably worse for them.
These phenomena, and their effect on leftists unhappy with Harris, is demonstrated well within Mount Holyoke’s student body. Take Clara Tupitza ’26, for example: a leftist who, in a statement to MHN, explained their reluctant allyship with Harris after the debate.
“Kamala’s performance was phenomenal, but most definitely catered to moderates. Her mention of personal gun ownership and her silence on climate change spoke volumes about who she was trying to appeal to … I was always going to vote for the [D]emocratic candidate regardless of who it was, because they are the lesser of two evils. I don’t agree with a lot of her stances and I take great issue with Biden’s track record, but on the most basic level, I rely on the [D]emocratic party to ensure I maintain my human rights.”
This statement was echoed by August Longtine ’26, who also gave a statement on his opinions after the debate to MHN. According to Longtine, “[Harris] seemed to be pandering towards the more moderate or right leaning voters. I think that she is aware that most left-leaning voters are already almost guaranteed to vote for her, so she is trying to build up her moderate voter base, which is rather irritating.”
When asked if he was still going to vote for Harris, despite her performance on the debate stage, Longtine gave a look into the beliefs of many frustrated with Harris’ moderate policies: “I don’t agree with almost any of her stances, but … my other option is a straight fascist, so I don’t really have a choice in who I am voting for.”
While the election is still several weeks away, it is clear what direction the Democrats are heading in as both politicians and voters. Harris and her allies will continue to push a centrist agenda that centers Harris’ ability to represent all American people, even those on the right of the political spectrum.Voters, on the other hand, will continue to feel ostracized by Harris’ choice in policy and advocacy. Nevertheless, when faced with the possibility of the Republicans winning, leftists will push down their reservations and vote blue.
Quill Nishi-Leonard ’27 contributed fact-checking.