The 2020 US Presidential election was one of the most significant elections in recent memory, especially due to the fact that it took place in the midst of a global pandemic. In the midst of this, two of the most notable contenders, Kamala Harris (on behalf of the Democratic Party) and Donald Trump (for the Republican Party), conducted campaigns that were starkly different in scale and strategy.
Surpassing expectations, Kamala Harris led a campaign that was much larger and more packed out than that of Donald Trump. The overarching question seemed to be: will the size of the campaign genuinely make a difference?
Harris’ campaign was characterized by an aggressive approach that was quite expansive on multiple levels. To begin with, her staffing strategy immensely outplayed that of Trump. She had an army of staff, hired in every state including traditional Republican territories. This recruitment spree was not limited to only people whose political ideologies aligned with her; rather she employed individuals irrespective of their party affiliations. The strength of this technique lay in the potential to obtain a wider understanding of what voters across the country want, thus increasing her chances of resonating with them.
Secondly, Harris invested heavily in digital campaigning which proved to be a tactical genius. The pandemic had stripped politicians of the ability to host traditional campaign rallies and reach out to large masses. Despite that, Harris was able to keep up the momentum by employing digital mediums. The digital campaign, comprising mainly of video messages, town halls, and social media, enabled Kamala to reach out to a wider set of audience, irrespective of their geographical location. This was clearly a strategic move that not only adhered to safety protocols but also capitalized on the power of digital media and its widespread reach.
In contrast, Trump’s campaign, surprisingly, was a more muted affair. This raised eyebrows given Trump’s penchant for spectacle and flamboyance. He chose to run a tighter ship with fewer staff and lesser campaigning. He relied mostly on his substantial Twitter following and smaller, more intimate rallies which starkly contrasted with Harris’s approach. It was a risky decision, leaving many wondering whether it would have been more effective for him to have increased the scale of his campaign, to match or exceed Harris’s.
In sum, the difference between the Harris and Trump campaigns were clearly highlighted in the 2020 presidential campaign. Harris ran a larger, more extensive campaign with greater geographical reach and a significant digital presence. Trump, in contrast, had a much smaller, intimate campaign that relied heavily on his personal outreach. Both strategies had their own merits and demerits. Nonetheless, the larger question that loomed was whether the size and scale of a campaign – as exemplified by Harris – do make a critical difference when it comes to influencing voters and winning the election. That is a question that continues to be of interest as we consider the future of political campaigns in a post-pandemic world and beyond.