On 6 November last year, many experienced observers of the American political scene suffered shock – Kamala Harris lost the elections in all key states and in the general vote with "unchoiceable" Donald Trump. There was plenty of time to look at Harris' run from a distance and sober, draw conclusions and rethink his own strategies. I'll take the hazard that the staff liable for Rafał Trzaskowski's run did not do so.
Association Game
Let's not pretend that elections are won by a program. Especially presidential – the most individual of possible, where face, tone, emotion counts. The program can have the best in the world, but voters remember passwords and images. It is not by accident that Wałęsa's 1995 leg is mentioned present or "Yes, in Can" Barack Obama. The candidate must arouse emotions and affirmative associations – at least more affirmative than the opponent.
With this, Trzaskowski and Harris had a problem at the start. Voters inactive associate PiS mainly with the 500 plus program. What does the Civic Coalition associate with? First instinct: Donald Tuski. Trzaskowski, alternatively of building his own identity, acted under his name. Harris had a akin problem – for years she was a silent vice president, without affecting the decisions, but with full work for Biden's administration's failures. They both couldn't separate themselves, come out of the shadow of their leaders, make their own authentic brand.
Yes, Harris had ideas, but they did not meet with the President's approval. And erstwhile asked straight what she would do differently than he did, she said, “Nothing.” Trzaskowski was in a somewhat better position – he is not a associate of the government, he is not an MP, he acts alone as president of Warsaw. All the more reason he could and should have presented the author's vision. Yet he did not choose to distance himself from Tusk, nor to circumstantial catchy slogans that could give his own thought of presidency.
Instead of your own message – safe generals. "I will go out with initiatives", "I will fix the justice system". It sounds better than "I wouldn't change anything," but it's inactive not words that will kidnap millions.
A prominent symbol of this run were the red corals – the mark of the election of Trzaskovsky. Symbol of another candidate – with minimal media exposure, little background, but besides authenticity and enthusiasm. Like Democrats in the United States, they owe a sympathetic association with the green album Brother Charlie XCX, so in Poland the motion of passing the corals became more memorable than anything the KO candidate proposed.
Internet lived memes about the green cover of the album Charlie XCX and aesthetics supported by young pop artists, but did not live by the appearances of the candidate, did not live by her vision. due to the fact that that imagination just wasn't there.
Silence about success is simply a gift to the enemy
If anyone was to believe that Harris and Trzaskowski were competent, liable and “moderate”, then concrete successes of their political camps should be shown. For any reason, however, the staff felt it was unnecessary.
Did Trzaskowski remind you that teachers received over 35 percent increases? That social workers received an additional PLN 1000 gross per month? That single parents were doubled in support from the maintenance fund? That there's work going on to link teachers' salaries to average salaries? That any of the taxes were reduced? That thanks to the guidelines of the Ministry of wellness and the Minister of Justice, the access to abortion was truly increased in Poland due to intellectual wellness problems, despite opposition in the coalition? Nope.
Harris was equally restrained. After all, Biden's administration had something to boast: evidence investment in infrastructure, proclimatic activities, expanding wellness care, supporting families. Instead, graphs were put on X/Twitter. Communication limited to experts. And the voters? They can Google themselves.
You know the saying about pigeon and chess?
The worst experience of this run was listening to what candidates gotta say about migration. Trzaskowski did not break out of line, trying to convince us that the wall on the border and the illegal suspension of asylum opportunities are excellent solutions. but PiS built the wall. And they took this thought from Trump, who in the 2016 run talked constantly about the most beautiful and wonderful wall always created – the 1 who wanted to build on the border with Mexico.
Harris and Trzaskowski's transmission was identical. They've come to build the wall, but we're truly guarding the border. Only that rather late (and rather rightly) they both criticized these ideas. Who would the pose on the far right convince? Are PiS and Trump inept hypocrites? The erstwhile most likely sold visas to anyone who could pay, and the second insisted on his organization not agreeing to the bill proposed jointly by Democratic and Republican Senators Secure the Border, Presuming a tightening of politics at the border with Mexico due to the fact that it would prevent him from campaigning. Yet, in this discussion, they are more credible.
If the voter decides on the basis of the attitude to migration, he likes the wall and considers it essential to guarantee safety, he will vote for Nawrocki or Trump. If the electoral organization concludes that the wall is only a ‘story’ road, suspension of the right to asylum whether the anticipation of applying for citizenship will have no affirmative effects, begins to have a problem. Yes, Poles – like Americans – fear migration, all polls indicate it. It's the only way to answer that. Trzaskowski and Harris were driven into a dead end: they tried to play the far right game – and they lost.
If Harris and Trzaskowski's campaigns had not made the above mentioned mistakes, would we be surviving in a little brown planet today? I don't know. possibly the baggage of the unpopular regulation of their organization would be besides powerful. possibly most people could not be persuaded to take a different view of migration. Perhaps, finally, their progressive image (as in the current US and Polish standards) would inactive be an insurmountable obstacle for more conservative voters, who would yet overstep the scales of triumph in favour of their competitors.
But standing apart and repeating arguments of the far right, being simultaneously opponents and alternate to this one, is directed absolutely to no one. Is there at least 1 individual who said yes, I will vote for them due to the fact that they bought me with the fact that they changed their head about the wall and were presently supported by those right-wingers who are quarreling with the another side? Or individual who was convinced by the circumstantial demands presented in their campaigns? Or at least individual who can exchange these demands?
It may be worth directing campaigning to real people in the future, not to concepts stuck with the results of focus research.
**
Karolina Wiśniowska – a postgraduate of law and doctrine at the Jagiellonian University. Author of technological and public texts on bioethics, social doctrine and doctrine of law. Privately a fan of British pop culture and sports fan.
