Analysis: A week on from the debate, Kamala Harris’ win may not be having the impact she hoped for
A week on from Kamala Harris’s debate against Donald Trump, her campaign may feel it has the upper hand.
Pundits, and polls of the watching public, judged the US vice president to have triumphed over her Republican opponent in the televised head-to-head.
She raised $47 million in the 24-hours following the showdown in Philadelphia on Sept 10, her biggest one-day haul since entering the race.
The 59-year-old has also increased her margin over Trump in post-debate national polls. A Morning Consult Poll released on Tuesday showed her with a record six-point lead.
Dig a little deeper, though, and there are signs that it would be premature for Ms Harris’ team to become complacent.
National polls may offer a promising outlook, but do not reflect how, or where, the White House will be won.
For one thing, pollsters point out the slim margin of Ms Harris’ lead creates the possibility she could win the popular vote but still lose the electoral college - as with Hillary Clinton in 2016.
Harry Enten, CNN’s data analyst, recently assessed the chances of Ms Harris winning the popular vote at 70 per cent, but her chance of winning the requisite 270 electoral college votes at just 50 per cent.
Look to the seven key battleground states, and it is clear the race is still a toss up.
Ms Harris leads in Wisconsin and Michigan, Trump in Georgia and Arizona. Pennsylvania - the biggest prize of them all with 19 electoral college votes - remains on a knife edge.
“Harris is ahead nationally right now... and I don’t think it matters all that much,” as Mr Enten noted for CNN. “Her advantage in the battlegrounds is basically nil.”
Many Democratic strategists remain upbeat. They argue that the debate has served its purpose: Ms Harris cleared an important hurdle.
And while she did not score many points on policy, the ensuing media storm over Trump’s debate claim that migrants were eating Ohio’s pets has done her no harm.
Presidential debates rarely alter the trajectory of elections - the most glaring recent exception being Joe Biden’s disastrous performance in June.
It is possible fresh polls will suggest a post-debate shift for Ms Harris in the critical swing states, but it appears unlikely.
Meanwhile, the Harris campaign has been shrewdly disciplined in its approach.
Aware of Trump’s gaping gender support gap, it has deployed significant resources to reach women, and particularly young women on social media.
Taylor Swift’s Instagram endorsement of Ms Harris and Tim Walz appeared to help drive up traffic to official voter registration sites.
Yet Brian Derrick, the founder of Oath, a new grassroots donation platform popular among young, urban-dwelling women, the “salience” of the pop star’s endorsement for many voters was an open question.
“Are they going to be thinking about Taylor Swift’s endorsement when they show up at a polling station? For many the answer is probably no,” he said.
However, Mr Derrick said the Democrat was choosing the right “strategic messengers” to target the issues that energise young women, such as abortion access.
But there are limitations to her ability to appeal to young progressives while also reaching the much-needed independent voters in the American heartlands.
As Christopher Nicholas, a veteran GOP political consultant points out, Ms Harris’ gains with younger, more racially diverse voters has had a “see-saw effect” for Democrats since she replaced Mr Biden as the party’s candidate.
“Now she has more of an issue with white, working class voters than Biden,” Mr Nicholas said, nothing it was the latter group that could move the needle in Pennsylvania.
With few remaining opportunities to move the needle between now and election day, the early momentum behind Ms Harris’ bid may not necessarily win her votes where she desperately needs them.