"It's not the economy, stupid: Why Kamala Harris should focus on everything else."

 A headline over at Salon. The piece is by Joe Tauke. Excerpt:

[R]egardless of whatever economic statistics Harris or Biden or any other Democrat might throw out there... [polls] strongly imply that no amount of attempted persuasion will convince voters that they feel better about the economy now than they did during the Trump administration — because, well, they don’t. It’s not even close.... Moreover, real-time economic conditions (other than inflation) for the country appear to be deteriorating just as the campaign enters its most intense phase.... If voters in [swing] states are thinking about the economy when casting their ballots, Trump will win. If Harris can get them to think about virtually anything else (other than immigration), she’ll win. In 1992, during Bill Clinton’s winning effort against George H.W. Bush, “It’s the economy, stupid” was the best advice a Democratic campaign could follow. In 2024, it’s the best way for the latest Democratic nominee to lose.

Okay, but "virtually anything else"? Immigration? Endless wars? Going toe-to-toe with Putin? The Covid lockdown? Guns? Gender affirmation treatments? DEI? Rather than "anything else," the best advice — the advice she seems to be taking — is that nothing else is better. Kamala Harris is running as representing no issue at all. They say you can't beat something with nothing, but they are trying, and they think — I believe — it's their best hope... because the something (Donald Trump) is so monstrously, calamitously bad.

ADDED: I think the phrase "You can't beat something with nothing" originated with Will Rogers, and he was talking, in 1934, about Republicans running on nothing but the horribleness of their opponent — FDR:

BUT: I see I blogged about Will Rogers and the phrase "You can't beat something with nothing" last January, here. At the time, "I wanted to critique the Biden campaign strategy." Ha ha. Anyway, I determined last January that "Will Rogers didn't invent 'You can't beat something with nothing.' Even back then, it was an 'old saying.'"

"At the Democratic convention, especially on the opening night, 'corporate greed' was a scourge, and speaker after speaker sought to link 'freedom'... to programs that protect the middle class..."

"... from the depredations of concentrated wealth.... [Y]ou have to understand how [Lina] Khan, a 35-year-old legal wunderkind, became both so revered and so abhorred. Khan is a heroine to many on the left.... But she’s also respected by many populist conservatives... What brings Khan’s fans together is suspicion of Big Business, Big Finance and Big Tech, even if the reason for their suspicion differs.... To Khan, as I suspect to Harris, price gouging means more than just corporations raising prices during emergencies. Rather, it’s shorthand for a whole range of exploitative practices that leave consumers feeling taken advantage of. 'Oftentimes, the way people are taught about prices is it’s just the result of supply and demand,' she said. 'These natural forces. And I think over the last few years in particular, people have started picking up on the fact that actually there are a whole bunch of other factors that can affect pricing.' That can mean outright collusion, but it can also mean things like junk fees and subscription traps. (Under Khan, the F.T.C. has proposed a rule that companies must make it as easy to cancel a subscription as it is to sign up for one.) 'I view the price-gouging conversation as an opening to talk about that broader set of corporate tactics,' said Khan. The fight against those tactics could be an important part of a Harris presidency...."

Writes Michelle Goldberg, in "Billionaire Donors Have It Out for This Legal Prodigy, but President Harris Will Need Her" (NYT).

"The fight against those tactics could be an important part of a Harris presidency...." — could be.  Did Goldberg have to write it like that — in the conditional — because Harris doesn't do interviews?