Put policy aside: Kamala Harris will win or lose based on the excitement factor

Kamala Harris’s first big policy speech did not exactly draw rave reviews from a media establishment that largely seems to adore her.

But with the Democratic convention getting under way, does that matter?

Perhaps the most stinging criticism came from the Washington Post’s mostly liberal editorial board, which declared that "unfortunately, instead of delivering a substantial plan, she squandered the moment on populist gimmicks."

That may well be true. But again, does it really matter?

KAMALA HARRIS, TIME COVER GIRL: IS HER SURGE AGAINST TRUMP FUELED BY AN ENDLESS MEDIA HONEYMOON?

Policy is crucially important as voters weigh how the candidates would govern for the next four years. It’s especially vital because Harris suddenly emerged as the substitute nominee in a three-month campaign – not a "coup," as Donald Trump says – when Joe Biden was pressured into stepping aside.

But as ideologically different as the two nominees are, I believe policy will play a relatively minor role in 2024.

Josh Barro, in the Atlantic, says a crackdown on price-gouging will make things worse and be virtually impossible to enforce:

"The substance likely won’t appeal to many people who actually know about economics. But it’s hard for me to argue with the politics….

"Harris is trying to win a presidential election, and to win elections, you run on popular ideas."

By the way, while I agree that going after price-gougers won’t work–groceries already operate on very thin margins–I see the Harris proposals as being mischaracterized as wage and price controls. I lived through Richard Nixon doing just that in the early 1970s and it was a disastrous failure. Harris isn’t saying the government should set prices for all products, though I can see why that’s a