Presidential candidate Kamala Harris, who from the very beginning was seen as a bad choice to face Republican Party’s candidate and former President Donald Trump is now experiencing dwindling support as her campaign strategies and messaging increasingly isolate specific voter demographics. Initially though she was projected to have galvanize diverse audiences, Kamala’s campaign has shifted its focus heavily towards issues tailored for Democratic core constituents, particularly on abortion rights, with a focus on appealing to women. This approach, however, has contributed to her waning appeal among men and broader voter groups. A very large segment of the people is even seeing her policy of abortion access up until birth,meaning, killing full-grown babies in the womb,as pure evil and Satanic. They see Kamala Harris as Satan’s disciple. On the other hand, Kamala’s inability of even answering most of the vital questions from media outlets – including Democratic Party leaning CNN, has evidently proved herself as totally unfit to hold the office of the president of America.

From the start, Kamala’s campaign seemed directed at securing key Democratic voter blocks, especially women, yet at the expense of engaging male voters. Her partnership with figures like Beyoncé, who emphasized female empowerment in a personal appeal to mothers and daughters, signals a campaign heavily rooted in identity politics. This approach, while resonating strongly within Democratic bases, alienates more neutral or conservative voters, particularly men, who feel left out of her message.

Campaign events, such as her appearance with Michelle Obama in Michigan, have reinforced Kamala’s women-centered messaging. Michelle Obama’s speech, which addressed men in a tone that some perceived as accusatory, highlighted that voting for Kamala Harris was the morally correct choice for those wanting to support women’s rights. Such a tone risks polarizing potential voters by implying that failing to support Kamala is morally reprehensible. This kind of messaging, while perhaps intended to rally women voters, may further entrench skepticism among men who already view the campaign as dismissive of their concerns.

Kamala Harris has increasingly leaned into a narrative that paints a stark, fear-based picture of a potential future under Donald Trump. This tactic, while effectively engaging a certain subset of voters, comes across to many as a relentless negative campaign. Kamala has repeatedly underscored the dire consequences she believes would follow a Trump presidency, especially regarding reproductive rights. While fear can indeed be a powerful motivator, it is less effective as a sustained message, often leading to fatigue among voters who seek a more aspirational vision.

Additionally, Kamala’s approach on the topic of abortion rights has been met with mixed reactions. Although she addresses this crucial issue passionately, her reluctance to specify the limits she would endorse has opened her to criticism. When pressed about any restrictions she might consider, Kamala’s refusal to provide a concrete answer underscores her positioning but leaves her vulnerable to accusations of inflexibility. For moderate voters, a lack of clear policy boundaries can translate into perceived extremism, further impacting her ability to connect beyond the Democratic core.

While Kamala’s campaign has attempted to appeal to male voters, these efforts have largely missed the mark. For example, her running mate Tim Walz appeared on a Twitch stream playing a football video game, a strategy that seemed tokenistic rather than genuinely engaging. Events like these have not translated into substantial support, particularly in contrast to Trump, who continues to resonate with a significant portion of male voters.

More tellingly, the contrast between Kamala’s attempts at male outreach and Trump’s own direct approach has worked against her. Trump’s recent interview with Joe Rogan, a highly popular male-focused podcaster, underlined a more genuine effort to connect with male voters who feel overlooked by Kamala’s approach. Trump’s message resonated with a broader audience, especially in comparison to Kamala’s campaign, which has struggled to shed its singular focus on certain demographics.

Once perceived as an optimistic and inspirational candidate, Kamala has gradually taken on a darker, more combative tone in her speeches, likely an attempt to emphasize the stakes of the election. She plans to continue this tactic with an upcoming major address in Washington, DC, where she is expected to focus on Trump’s perceived threats to democracy and reproductive rights. However, while such a narrative may succeed in energizing certain segments of her base, it has diminishing returns as a standalone strategy.

Many moderate and independent voters express a desire for more positive, forward-looking policies that address issues like the economy, education, and healthcare. Kamala’s focus on Trump as the primary threat to the nation may not appeal to voters who want solutions, not solely a counter-candidate.

The media, traditionally an ally of Democratic candidates, has shown signs of unease with Kamala’s campaign strategy. Notably, several journalists have resigned in frustration over their outlets’ decisions not to endorse her, citing moral and political concerns. In the case of the Washington Post, ownership has chosen to refrain from making an endorsement—a departure from their historical support for Democrats, which has sparked outcry among the paper’s opinion staff.

The turmoil among journalists, however, signals a growing frustration with the campaign’s approach and suggests that Kamala’s tactics may not align with even her base’s expectations. This lack of media alignment has given Republicans a line of criticism, framing the situation as a sign of her failing appeal.

Kamala’s decline also reflects, in part, ongoing concerns about President Joe Biden’s leadership and age. Recent revelations about Biden’s cognitive struggles have drawn attention to Kamala’s perceived inaction in addressing these concerns. Woodward’s reports of Biden’s troubling moments at fundraisers raise questions about his capacity to lead and, by extension, about Kamala’s judgment as a candidate. Some perceive her loyalty as a strategic liability, suggesting that her refusal to acknowledge Biden’s cognitive state implies a lack of transparency.

Kamala’s careful sidestepping on this issue has done little to win the confidence of skeptical voters. Despite clear public concern about Biden’s capacity to serve another term, Kamala Harris has maintained a stance of support without addressing these issues. Such an approach not only reflects poorly on her decision-making but also fails to reassure voters about her readiness to lead.

Kamala Harris’s campaign, once promising, has struggled to maintain broad-based momentum. Her focus on niche demographics, reliance on fear-driven messaging, and failure to engage male voters in a meaningful way have contributed to her eroding support. Furthermore, her close alignment with Biden and reluctance to address his cognitive state further add to public doubts about her readiness to lead.

If Kamala is to regain traction, she will need to expand her appeal beyond her core constituency. This may involve adopting a more balanced, inclusive narrative that addresses a range of issues affecting a broader audience, and pivoting away from exclusively negative rhetoric. Moving forward, Kamala Harris faces the challenge of demonstrating that she can be a unifying figure, capable of addressing the concerns of all Americans – not just her base. But, according to analysts, time is quickly running out for Kamala as the election will be held in less than a week, and there is no magic wand for her to change everything in her favor. In this case, Kamala Harris is most certainly heading towards a humiliating defeat on November 5.

Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel