Kamala Harris's success or failure will depend on her ability to generate excitement.

Kamala Harris's initial major policy address did not receive positive reviews from the media, which generally appears to be fond of her.

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

The Washington Post's liberal editorial board delivered the harshest criticism of her plan, stating that she wasted the opportunity on populist tricks.

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

The policy is crucial for voters to determine how the candidates will govern for the next four years, especially since Harris became the substitute nominee in a three-month campaign, not a "coup," as Trump claims.

Despite their ideological differences, I predict that policy will have a limited impact on the 2024 election.

In the Atlantic, Josh Barro argues that a crackdown on price-gouging will lead to negative consequences and be difficult to enforce.

It's difficult for me to dispute the politics, but the substance is unlikely to be appealing to many people with knowledge of economics.

"To win a presidential election, Harris is running on popular ideas."

While I agree that targeting price-gougers won't be effective, I see Harris' proposals as being mischaracterized as wage and price controls. I lived through Richard Nixon's implementation of such policies in the early 1970s, which resulted in a disastrous failure. Harris isn't advocating for the government to set prices for all products, though it's understandable why this could be used as an attack line by the Trump campaign.

The Post's editorial page agrees with me that the vice president is providing expensive incentives, such as a $25,000 down payment for first-time home buyers, without explaining how to pay for them. According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, her overall plan would increase the deficit by $1.7 trillion over the next decade, which is a concerning matter.

The election outcome will not be determined by policy, but rather by Harris's ability to captivate audiences with her youth, energy, enthusiasm, and use of the word "joy."

Harris is a cultural phenomenon and a TikTok sensation, and her current proposals, while largely symbolic, convey her determination to address inflation and kitchen-table concerns for middle-class families, while distancing herself from Bidenomics.

Even though a New York Times/Sienna College poll shows her closing the gap or statistically tied in four Sun Belt states, Trump still has an easier path to 270 and the VP still has to win Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

Harris remains, as she says, the underdog.

If Kamala succeeds in winning the election, it will be due to her personal appeal to key voters, especially women. Ultimately, this is how most elections are decided.

In 2016, despite predictions of a Hillary victory, Trump's win was due to his image as a tenacious and entertaining fighter, rather than his stance on specific issues such as immigration and crime.

The collapse of the Democrats' Midwestern blue wall was due to the allure of Trump's culture war, which was criticized by the media for covering his rallies.

Trump's hostile press corps and a 59-year-old woman of color running against him have thrown him off his game. Despite advice from Lindsey Graham, Trump continues to make personal attacks against Harris, who is also attacking him. This is the Trump pattern.

Despite journalists and commentators arguing that Joe Biden was capable of serving another term, the media is now focusing on every error made by the 78-year-old Trump. Trump seems to miss Biden, as he frequently talks about how he was unjustly removed from office, despite having spent years preparing to run against the 81-year-old president.

Despite being the oldest candidate in the race, Trump is still being portrayed as the young man by the media.

If Biden had remained as the nominee and lost, the Democrats and pundits would be feeling depressed. However, they are now excited about Kamala as the nominee.

The media has largely ignored whether Vice President Kamala Harris has done any interviews, despite her taking questions for about 4 minutes the other day. This is because Trump and his allies have been attacking her as a "Teleprompter candidate."

Trump openly states that he wants to label Harris as a communist, so he digs up old far-left positions she held four years ago as if they are her current views, a tactic used by both sides. However, she failed to address her policy shifts (or, more graciously, evolution) in her response. The significance of policy will be tested after the convention, as her numbers may be seen as a "sugar high," meaning the inevitable decline may soon bring her back to reality.

Neither Harris nor Walz has conducted an interview, while Vance is appearing on Sunday shows and holding press conferences.

With a docile press corps, Harris prefers to brief off the record on Air Force 2, which is working for her.

MSNBC did not cover the second of Trump's news conferences in a week, with Nicolle Wallace stating that such events have become more about threats, lies, and demeaning people rather than issues and news. CNN briefly stopped covering the conference when Trump read off blue cards for 40 minutes, but later returned when he took questions. Only Fox carried the entire conference and has also been airing some of Kamala's rallies.

Trump has linked Harris to the unpopularity of the Biden-Harris record, a common issue for VPs without independent policy-making power.

MSNBC's liberal hosts, including Rachel Maddow, Joy Reid, Lawrence O'Donnell, and Chris Hayes, vehemently dislike Trump and believe he should never be allowed on their show, as it negatively impacts their reputation and angers their audience.

They spend all day discussing Trump and have 22 hours left to highlight inaccuracies and exaggerations.

Why wouldn't they dismiss his convention speech?