What Might A Harris Administration Look Like?

On the eve of tonight’s presidential debate, our Alternative Futures Team offers their insight into the range of possibilities for what a Harris administration could look like. (We wrote about what a Trump administration might look like here).

• Young & Green Government – A younger, progressive administration focused on climate, diversity, inclusion and legislation and regulation designed to promote equality and fairness.

• Liberal Establishment – An administration pursuing progressive priorities with (liberal) consensus-driven policy prescriptions and equally comfortable with Wall Street and Silicon Valley.

• Biden, The Sequel – An administration that leverages the power of government to advance traditional Democratic policy objectives (e.g., jobs, infrastructure, healthcare).

• Progressive Technocrats – A progressive, solutions-oriented administration that takes a pragmatic data-driven approach to craft policies designed to support healthy communities and families.

The framework to describe these possibilities considers three primary inputs: Harris’ speeches and interviews; the official Democratic party platform; and analysis of Harris’s record and key advisors’ input indicates. Possible priorities and ideas have begun to emerge from these inputs:

• Harris’s own words indicate a focus on lowering costs for everyday Americans; prioritizing ”care economy” issues; protecting reproductive freedom; pro-union efforts; and more.

• The Democratic platform suggests Harris will focus on investment in infrastructure, manufacturing and small business; cutting taxes for working families; protecting Social Security and Medicare; fighting the climate crisis; and more.

• Policy advisors and influencers indicate a focus on providing tax incentives to help first-time homebuyers; increasing the corporate tax rate; defending Israel’s right to self-defense while also backing Palestinians’ right to self- determination; and more.

Voters in battleground states have different opinions on many issues, but they seem to agree on one thing: price gouging. We asked voters in six presidential battleground states through our insight community TrendSpotters about their thoughts on Harris’s proposed ban on “price gouging” by food suppliers and grocery stores. Just under a hundred panelists participated in the activity between August 23 and 26.

Their key insight: Besides proving popular with Democrats, the proposal brings to the fore a wider set of complaints about large corporations; from unfair tax breaks to poor treatment of workers, and too much of a focus on shareholder return. In this sense, the specific proposed policy speaks to a wider set of concerns felt by voters, indicating its potency as a signature policy for the Harris campaign.

Nearly two-thirds of Battleground TrendSpotters support Harris’s federal ban on corporate price gouging.

• This is similar to national numbers – 60% of voters nationally support capping increases on food and grocery prices.

• By party, Battleground Democrats are overwhelmingly in favor of this (89%). Only 11% of Democrats say they are unsure, but none outright oppose the ban.

• Although support among battleground Republicans is lower, they’re not necessarily opposed to it. Four-in-ten Republicans (42%) are on the fence and say they need more information, while 34% are in support and 23% are opposed.

• Battleground Independents are mixed between support (43%) for the policy and feeling on the fence about it (43%). Only 14% of Independents say they oppose the ban.

Battleground voters are feeling anxious about the rising cost of goods, especially at the grocery store. Many believe this policy would help ease the pain of inflation and help keep them and their neighbors out of poverty. And thinking about price gouging tends to bring to mind other complaints that battleground voters have about large corporations—beyond just the price of food.

On the other hand, those who oppose Harris’s plan to ban price gouging label it as socialist and say it goes against free-market principles.

For more information, reach out to insights@fgsglobal.com.

Disinformation and false narratives are increasingly fueling unfounded concerns about fraud and undermining confidence in electoral systems. To mitigate these concerns, FGS Global’s Alternative Futures Team is working with Alethea to track election disinformation on 19 mainstream and niche social media platforms. Here’s what they’ve found:

Recurring Narratives

• Undocumented immigrants and the 2024 election: Several high-reach, right- leaning sources continue to claim undocumented immigrants would steal the 2024 election for Democrats. 

• Battleground state election fraud: Right-leaning influencers continue to circulate a report that bundles debunked fraud stories from swing states. These narratives will likely persist.

Battleground State Narratives

• Nevada: Significant volumes of content claim inaccurate voter rolls have facilitated Democratic voter fraud for two decades.

• Georgia: Significant amount of content asserts the 2020 election was stolen and that officials will hide voter fraud again in 2024.

• Pennsylvania: Significant amount of content claiming explanations from state officials on mail-in ballots counting are part of a plan to steal this year’s election.

• Michigan: Moderate volumes of content suggesting state government officials – Gov. Whitmer in particular – are actively working to steal the election for Democrats and preparing to conceal their efforts.

• Arizona: Moderate quantity of content alleging Arizona election officials are concealing claims of mass voter fraud and normalizing refusal to certify state election results.