Trump vs. Harris: Personal attacks heat up in US presidential race Expert opinions

The heated atmosphere in the US presidential race has reached a new level. Republican candidate Donald Trump and his Democratic opponent Kamala Harris have resorted to personal attacks in their statements about each other.

US Vice President and 2024 presidential candidate Kamala Harris openly accused her main rival, Donald Trump, of fascism. This bold statement was made during a live interview on CNN, where Harris was asked directly if she considers Trump a fascist. She responded affirmatively: “And I also believe that the people who know him best on this subject should be trusted,” Harris emphasized.

According to her, several former members of Trump’s administration, who worked with him during his presidency from 2017 to 2021, have described him as “unfit and dangerous.” They also stated that the former president “has contempt for the Constitution of the United States” and “should never again serve as president of the United States.” Harris did not specify who among Trump’s associates shared this information with her.

Trump quickly fired back, dismissing Harris’s accusations as the product of her “warped mind.” “She is increasingly raising her rhetoric, going so far as to call me Adolf Hitler, and anything else that comes to her warped mind,” he wrote on his social media platform, Truth Social.

Trump has also previously labelled Harris “Comrade Kamala Harris,” claiming her policies threaten American democracy with a radical leftist agenda.

With the US presidential election set for November 5, 2024, recent polling averages indicate near-equal support for both candidates. But what impact could this heightened rhetoric have on the average voter, given Americans' political and historical perspectives? Which is a greater concern for everyday citizens: a “fascist” or a “communist”? Or could these barbs ultimately mean little to voters focused on the nation’s future?

American experts shared their insights on these questions with Caliber.Az.

Political analyst Andrew Korybko believes that claims labelling one candidate as a communist and the other as a Nazi reflect the radical partisanship that has taken hold in American politics.

“This has always been a pressing issue, but the recent trend began around the 2008 elections when Obama was labelled a communist. It didn’t reach its current intensity until the 2016 elections when Trump was first called a ‘Nazi.’ So, this is nothing new. It’s also unlikely to have a significant impact on undecided voters,” the expert notes.

According to Korybko, the number of voters who have not yet made up their minds is relatively small.

“Such voters are more concerned with real policy issues, and perhaps only specific ones, which is why insults from either side are unlikely to influence their preferences on Election Day.

What this extreme rhetoric demonstrates is that each candidate wants voters to believe this election will be a turning point—either for the better (to defeat fascism or communism) or for the worse (risking the country becoming fascist or communist),” Korybko concludes.

According to analyst Irina Tsukerman, an expert in geopolitics and security and the editor-in-chief of The Washington Outsider, as the US elections approach, the impact of personal attacks between candidates on voters diminishes. This is especially true since such epithets are predictable, repetitive, and do not provide any substantial evidence of the plans or character of either candidate.

“However, it’s worth noting that the Democratic campaign team has repeatedly advised Kamala Harris to avoid letting attacks on Trump dominate her campaign. Instead, they’ve recommended that she focus on highlighting her own strengths and his weaknesses. Presumably, her lack of adaptability and reluctance to accept criticism cost her the presidential campaign in 2020. Despite the growing and loud reiteration of this advice from sympathetic media, various Democratic officials, and party operatives, Harris continues to concentrate almost exclusively on Trump, failing to reveal her own plans or strengths,” the editor explained.

Regarding Trump, Tsukerman notes that most of his supporters have become accustomed to his habit of insulting opponents, which is why they pay little attention to it.

“Since August, despite only a slight difference in current polling, Trump has managed to shift the trend in his favour: in August, he was trailing Harris by two points, but now he leads her by two points. Moreover, an increasing number of American Muslims, Black Americans, and Latinos—especially men—are gravitating toward Trump due to concerns about the economy, border security, and the socially liberal policies of the Democratic Party. Many from this demographic group feel disappointed by the Democrats because of unmet campaign promises, a sense of entitlement, a lack of vision for the future, and a patronizing tone coupled with elitism.

They see that their serious grievances on various issues are largely ignored by the Democrats. This indicates that long-term political trends, rather than the personalities of the candidates, are currently more significant factors for voters,” Tsukerman concludes.