Welcome to the latest in our series of Policy Conversations between Counsel Public Affairs Senior VP John Delacourt and Counsel PA Account Director Will Shelling about the 2024 US presidential election. John is a veteran Liberal strategist, longtime Policy contributor and novelist, and Will is a Vegas-raised, Vancouver-based NDPer. This is their sixth exchange in the series.

By John Delacourt and Will Shelling

October 11, 2024

John Delacourt: Will, the forecasts are getting increasingly cloudy on the Harris-Walz front. It is difficult to get a sense of any momentum right now for them and, as shambolic as the Trump campaign seems, the morning numbers I look at (from the New York Times) indicate this is still too close to call. Do you sense that the Democrats can react effectively to this frustrating sense that they’re treading water when they need to be getting a length ahead in swing states?

Will Shelling: I think more than a few Democrats (including myself) are feeling frustrated right now. I think while the momentum is still there for Harris and Walz to take the White House, there’s an overwhelming sense that we’ve been attempting to pin down the ocean. It’s something shocking to see the poll numbers, data, and sheer support that Harris has received since late July, and still see her lag behind. I think it’s important to note that at this same time, in 2012, that Obama was just behind Romney and still won. I think many voters are facing disillusionment by the system at large now, but the key for Harris campaign is accessing that wide Democrat “universe” and convincing people that there is a more hopeful alternative, rather than saying “at least we’re not them!”

I think Harris’ team is pivoting for the next month toward both hers and Walz’s strengths. For Walz, placing him in key states with audiences who would welcome a visit from a VP hopeful who can speak plainly to folks. For Harris, on the podcast circuit, to simply get out there and talk to people. She recently appeared on a popular Spotify exclusive podcast, Call Her Daddy, featured with host Alexandra Cooper. The 44-minute podcast episode delved deeply into issues facing Americans today, giving Harris a platform that is majority female, under 35, and not just Democrats.

While there’s some contention with Harris’ appearance on both this podcast and Howard Stern’s, I think this speaks to the legacy media outlets (e.g. New York Times, Politico, and others), being cast aside for new ways of connecting with voters. What do you think the impact of a move like this will be for the Harris campaign? Do you see someone like PM Trudeau hitting the podcast circuit in 2025?

Delacourt: It’s an interesting contrast that’s created when you examine this issue of communicating to voters on channels and platforms that can create the impression of fresh approaches, new contexts and ways of communicating that might cause swing, undecided or unmotivated voters to sit up and pay attention.

I believe this approach can pay dividends for Harris because she is a new, fresh face to voters, despite being the VP for nearly four years. That should be more surprising, perhaps, given the mandate and responsibilities she was tasked with under Biden but so much air time over the last few months was taken up with Biden’s fitness and the succession drama within the Democratic party that being in the background was to her advantage.

Shelling: Definitely, that’s something I’ve been thinking about too. Her insulation as VP allowed her to be re-introduced in a way and to declare every policy position (even if it was the same), as if it was a great change from Biden.

Delacourt: Will she be able to sway undecided voters through this approach? The challenge here is that it’s becoming more and more apparent that this pool of voters is quite small. It’s frustrating but, upon reflection, despite the initial bump her presence created, so much of this vote split was already decided. The real benefit of Harris’s appearances on Stern or Colbert is that she will motivate voters not to sit this one out. It’s all about generating the excitement and the inspiration to make the effort, which is a particular challenge for the Democrats with young voters. Obviously, the jury’s out on whether this might work – but not trying to connect with voters in these novel ways would have been a grave error.

The effort by the Liberals to get the Prime Minister out there on the podcast circuit and in other media markets through opportunities like his appearance on Colbert seems a bit of a net neutral. People who like him in these settings seem to like him a lot, but whether this is winning over voters who’ve moved to the Conservatives or convinced swing voters to vote for him again … well … the challenge seems to be that it all has a 2015 air about it, and Canadians are in a very different place. And I think he’s unfortunately compelled to shadow box against another opponent apart from Poilievre: the phantom threat of incumbency.

Will, I’m wondering, though, if this is not just a challenge for Trudeau. Singh was an early adopter with Instagram and Tik Tok, to the point of replicating memes that only young voters truly understood. That younger vote is moving, in droves, it seems, to the Conservatives. How do you think Singh can refresh the party brand and put his own negatives in the background, rather than the foreground now?

Shelling: I think Singh has a similar issue to Trudeau, regarding incumbency and being leader for a political party during some of the roughest economic blows and health issues we’ve faced in over 100 years. The distance we’ve taken from the Liberal Party has resulted in gains, especially against the Conservatives, but I think there will be a strategic focus on new policy that is designed to galvanize the younger voters that were once lost. I think many people are voting differently this election because they are tired of the status quo, and they may see Singh as part of that. However, there’s a wider space for renewal for the Orange Team’s image than the Red Team, and I suspect Singh will be taking advantage of that before 2025.

For instance, we’ve been seeing more progressive populist policies trickling out of their policy shop, and I think that is necessary to provide a counter in this moment to the CPC. For instance, in both BC and Manitoba, we’ve seen NDP governments tackling huge issues like housing and affordability by realising that other crises also intersect, and can be solved through progressive policy, offering a foil to the CPC. For instance, I’ve noticed on the doors that many people, while not overtly pleased with the NDP’s actions on some files or who have grown tired of their governing style, do respect their ability to blend policy ideas together to get to an outcome that works for most folks. I think there’s a tremendous amount that the federal party has learned and can still lean from the provincial parties, despite their differences. This gives Singh way more space to move to craft pragmatic and progressive policies that can capture Canadians.

Especially with the rise of extreme weather events, that are frankly becoming all too normal, any new ideas from our leaders will be incredibly welcome on how we can tackle this crisis together, rather than divided. Speaking of weather, I know in my lifetime, the last major Hurricane that captivated the public’s attention was Hurricane Katrina in 2005, however due to climate change, we’re seeing more and more of these that it is frankly, feeling a bit too normal.

While the Harris-Walz campaign speak at length in their platform about extreme weather events, there’s significant content out there (and on Tiktok) of people who are convinced that this is a politicized issue, and one of division within their communities. Conspiracy theories, especially about FEMA, are running amok online, causing confusion and frankly, disarray as the hurricane slams Florida. Since we live in a world where these events are happening at faster rates, is the politicization of extreme weather events here to stay? If so, how can we combat that?

Delacourt: This is a great question, Will. And I think it speaks to that epistemic divide that has opened in a glaring way over the last decade, when disinformation became the lethal weaponizing factor in every campaign. This is about trust in those legacy institutions – including those of the media – that instilled a consensus on what was the truth. I thought it was interesting that, according to Edelman’s Trust Barometer, the year trust in government, government institutions and the media dipped below 50 percent in the US was the year Trump won. Those numbers in that Trust Barometer have not improved either in Canada or the US, so I think it’s going to be a long battle ahead with disinformation and misinformation, and of course we don’t have a lot of time to right the course where the threats are truly existential.

Not a happy note to conclude with, but maybe this issue of trust will be one for voters’ reflection, on both sides of the border in the months ahead.

John Delacourt is a Senior VP at Counsel Public Affairs. He has served in a number of portfolios in three federal Liberal governments, as well as in communications and stakeholder relations in Opposition. He is the author of five novels and a regular contributor to Policy magazine. 

Will Shelling is an account director at Counsel PA and New Democrat who specializes in justice, equity, diversity and inclusion, Indigenous affairs, climate change, and Canadian culture. He is a director for White Ribbon Canada, a national non-profit dedicated to ending gender-based violence. He was raised in Las Vegas, and now lives in Vancouver, BC.

John and Will will be conversing weekly until November.