Kamala Harris has had a strong start to her presidential campaign, but the remaining weeks leading up to the Nov. 5 election will be closely contested and Harris faces real obstacles.

She must articulate her own positions to separate her candidacy from some of the less popular policies and outcomes seen during the Biden-Harris administration. And as she fills in the details, her plans will be picked apart, diminishing her chances to sway voters in the swing states that will decide the 2024 election.

In important policy areas, Harris has undergone an almost complete transformation, switching from unabashed progressive to careful centrist. Some voters will question the authenticity of her revised views. But for others, inconsistency won’t be the problem. It’s the policies themselves — appealing at first but ineffective, challenging to implement or more progressive than most Americans are comfortable with. It’s policy, therefore, that could prove to be the Achilles’ heel in Harris’ efforts to keep Trump from a second term.

In her first extensive media interview since becoming the Democrats’ 2024 standard-bearer, Harris argued that voters should be comfortable with her reversals because her “values” have not changed. Maybe so, but voters will wonder what her values could cause her to do once elected.

On domestic energy exploration, Harris has gone from saying in 2019 that she opposed fracking and offshore oil drilling to noting that she would not seek to ban fracking after all. On healthcare that same year, the then-presidential primary candidate was an ardent supporter of Medicare for All, a reform to institute a government-run system that would significantly disrupt existing coverage arrangements. But a campaign spokesman recently said that she no longer favors this plan.

Similarly, on immigration policy — a topic that voters earlier this year in a Wall Street Journal survey identified as their 2024 top issue — Harris has struck an aggressive tone and changed positions on the Trump border wall, embracing the recent bipartisan border security bill that includes $650 million in funding for the wall, while walking away from her previous support for decriminalizing illegal border crossings.

In other issue areas, it’s simply the weaknesses in the ideas she’s proposed that will dog her. This is particularly the case with some of her economic policy proposals.

Her housing plans, for example, include an idea that sounds appealing at first: providing $25,000 in down-payment assistance to first-time home buyers, as well as an additional $10,000 tax credit for purchasing a home. Such a plan would increase demand for new homes but, without significant additional supply, would also likely increase home prices for those it intends to help and potentially others in the market for a new home as well. (It’s worth noting that Harris has also proposed incentives for developers who build starter homes, as well as making it possible to build new affordable housing on federal lands. But in supply-constrained states like California, these proposals alone may not create sufficient inventory to lower prices.)

Harris has conceded that food prices still remain far too high for too many Americans, but her solution — a federal ban on price-gouging — has been panned by even some progressive economists as counterproductive to encouraging the macroeconomic trends that would bring down prices. Her plan would do nothing to change the factors that drive up food prices — supply chain challenges, geopolitical conflicts and high energy costs to name a few — and it’s unclear that a president would be able to do much, if anything, to address these root causes, in any case.

Then there’s the fact that lawmakers from her own party have said that Harris’ price-gouging idea wouldn’t pass Congress, even if Democrats win a majority in both chambers, and would be difficult to implement as well. It’s also a lightning rod for opposition from conservatives who can easily equate it to the price controls seen in some economies around the world.

Finally, there are Harris’ proposed $5 trillion in tax increases.

She’s called for raising the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28%, after Congress enacted the lower rate and Trump signed it into law in 2017. But this would only serve to restore incentives for companies to locate elsewhere to avoid paying the higher rates.

Perhaps most controversial is the Harris plan to create a new wealth tax, which would require some high net-worth families to pay taxes each year on the value of their assets, even if they remain unsold. The taxation of what are known as unrealized capital gains is problematic for many reasons, not the least of which are the administrative challenges in collecting the tax and the issues created by trying to accurately value assets that fluctuate over time or aren’t publicly traded.

For most voters in most states, the policy proposals of either presidential candidate won’t matter. They’ve made up their minds. But for the few remaining undecided voters in swing states, what Harris has proposed and how she defends and explains her future policies may very well be dispositive. To secure their support, she’ll have to hope that these Americans forgive the inconsistencies in her record and the deficiencies in what she’s proposed thus far.

Lanhee J. Chen is the David and Diane Steffy Fellow in American Public Policy Studies at the Hoover Institution. He was a candidate for California state controller in 2022 and served as policy director of Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign.

Former President Donald Trump is back in Pennsylvania on Wednesday evening, to headline a Fox News town hall.

The Sean Hannity-moderated prime time event is being held at the New Holland Arena in Harrisburg, the capital city of the key battleground state in the race between Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris.

Trump was previously in Pennsylvania last Friday at a rally in Johnstown, in the western part of the state.

FOX NEWS TOWN HALL WITH FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP MODERATED BY SEAN HANNITY – WEDNESDAY 9PM ET

“Sixty-seven days from now, we’re going to win Pennsylvania,” the former president declared.

Harris stopped in Pittsburgh on Monday to team up with President Biden at a Labor Day event in the state’s second-largest city and union stronghold. The vice president returns to Pittsburgh on Thursday for her second stop this week.

The vice president is heading back to Pittsburgh on Thursday, to prepare for next week’s first and potentially only presidential debate with Trump. Harris is expected to stay in the state through next Tuesday’s prime time debate, which is taking place in Philadelphia.

HARRIS STOPS IN KEY SWING STATE THAT TRUMP CHARGES VP AND BIDEN ‘DISRESPECTED’

While Election Day on November 5 is nine weeks away, early voting in Pennsylvania begins this month, as Harris noted on Monday, telling supporters that “ballots in Pennsylvania will start dropping in 14 days.”

Democratic presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris and President Biden arrive at a campaign event at the IBEW Local Union #5 union hall in Pittsburgh on Labor Day, Monday, Sept. 2, 2024. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

Pennsylvania is arguably the most important of seven swing states that decided the 2020 election between Trump and Biden, and that both campaigns see as the states that will determine the outcome of the 2024 presidential showdown.

“It’s the one state that it’s hard to see someone losing and then still winning the presidential race,” Pittsburgh-based longtime Republican national strategist and ad maker Mark Harris told Fox News. “It’s clearly ground zero.”

MARGIN OF ERROR RACE BETWEEN HARRIS, TRUMP, AS CAMPAIGN ENTERS FINAL STRETCH 

Mark Harris, a veteran of multiple GOP presidential campaigns, said, “You can see that in media reservations and in the candidates’ travel schedules. Clearly, the Trump campaign and the Harris camp believe this is a must-win situation.”

Mike Butler, a Pittsburgh-based Democratic consultant, told Fox News that when it comes to the White House race, “I don’t think any other state quite swings the needle as much as Pennsylvania.”

BIDEN TEAMS UP WITH HARRIS AS HE RETURNS TO CAMPAIGN TRAIL FOR FIRST TIME SINCE ENDING RE-ELECTION BID

The campaigns and the deep-pocketed super PACs supporting Harris and Trump have already shelled out over $336 million to run ads in Pennsylvania, according to data from the nationally known ad tracking firm AdImpact. That includes nearly $150 million to reserve air time to run spots in the final two months – a figure that is likely to rise in the coming weeks.

It is not just the top of the ticket campaigning in Pennsylvania. Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, the Democrats’ vice presidential nominee, campaigns Wednesday and Thursday in Lancaster, Pittsburgh and Erie. Sen. JD Vance of Ohio, Trump’s running mate, has made campaign stops in Pennsylvania nearly every single week since becoming the GOP vice presidential nominee in mid-July.

GOP running mate Sen. JD Vance criticizes Vice President Kamala Harris and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz at a Trump campaign event in Philadelphia on Aug. 6, 2024. (Fox News – Paul Steinhauser)

Pennsylvania, along with Michigan and Wisconsin, are the three Rust Belt states that make up the Democrats’ so-called “Blue Wall.”

The party reliably won all three states for a quarter-century before Trump narrowly captured them in the 2016 election to win the White House.

Four years later, in 2020, Biden carried all three states by razor-thin margins to put them back in the Democrats’ column, as he defeated Trump.

Fast-forward to the present day, and Pennsylvania remains a jump-ball, as the latest public opinion surveys in the state indicate a margin-of-error race between Harris and Trump. 

“It’s going to be a fight to the finish. I think Trump has some advantages,” Mark Harris said. “But its definitely going to be a very tight race.”

Butler noted that Pennsylvania’s had razor-thin margins in the past two presidential elections. “Trump’s numbers are pretty solidly baked in. I can’t see him faring any worse than he did the last two times, which means it’s going to be a very competitive state,” he said.

Get the latest updates from the 2024 campaign trail, exclusive interviews and more at our Fox News Digital election hub. 

Following two wet winters that boosted California’s water supplies, Gov. Gavin Newsom has officially lifted a drought emergency declaration in 19 counties that are home to 70% of the state’s population.

The decision will roll back certain drought-related state authorities in counties including Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Orange and Riverside, among others.

At the same time, Newsom decided to keep the drought state of emergency in effect in 39 counties where state officials say significant effects of the severe 2020-22 drought have persisted, including depleted groundwater supplies and threats to native fish.

These 39 counties include regions across the Central Valley and in the watersheds of the Scott, Shasta and Klamath rivers, among other areas.

Newsom referred to this week’s extreme heat wave as he explained why his administration is retaining certain drought authorities in parts of the state.

“As this week’s weather makes clear, California and the West experience extreme weather swings that exacerbate our water challenges and make it more important than ever that we build a climate-resilient water system,” Newsom said. “This targeted action is responsive to current conditions while continuing the tools and support for work underway to help future-proof water supplies in the most impacted communities.”

State officials said Newsom’s order responds to the improved conditions in parts of the state while continuing efforts to support drought recovery. They said where certain drought measures remain in place, they will help the state address continued impacts to local water supplies.

“We continue to help local communities recover from drought conditions,” said Wade Crowfoot, California’s natural resources secretary. “In some cases, the powers that we have under these orders are quite helpful to support local communities recovering.”

The measures that will remain in place in 39 counties include suspending environmental requirements for certain groundwater recharge projects, giving the state natural resources secretary the authority to suspend environmental requirements for conservation projects and allowing the Office of Emergency Services to continue providing disaster assistance funding. State agencies will also continue to have the authority to adopt emergency regulations to require minimum flows in the Klamath River and Clear Lake watersheds to protect salmon and other fish.

“We know that our water extremes are getting more extreme. Our dry periods are becoming drier. Our wetter periods are becoming wetter,” Crowfoot said. “So business as usual is no longer an option. That is in part why we’re maintaining some of these provisions, to enable us to move more quickly to allow communities to recover from these impacts, but also to prepare for what will be worsening droughts and floods over time.”

California suffered through the state’s driest three-year period on record from 2020 through 2022.

Newsom declared a statewide drought emergency in October 2021 and called for Californians to voluntarily reduce water use 15%.

The drought ended dramatically in early 2023 as one of the wettest winters on record unleashed flooding and blanketed the Sierra Nevada in heavy snow.

In March 2023, following that series of storms, Newsom rolled back some of the most stringent drought measures, including an order that had required urban suppliers to activate conservation plans for a shortage of 20%.

The termination of the drought emergency in 19 counties ended provisions that had enabled emergency conservation measures, suspended restrictions on water diversions during storms for groundwater recharge, and suspended requirements of state contracting laws, among other things.

In addition to lifting the drought measures, the governor rescinded provisions of prior executive orders that were aimed at recovery efforts following the flooding in 2023.

During the last two wet years, the governor’s drought executive order effectively became a “drought-flood” executive order, enabling expanded efforts to capture floodwaters and address damage, said Karla Nemeth, director of the state Department of Water Resources. She said it’s now the drought provisions that have a “long tail” and are still needed in parts of the state.

“Even if there isn’t a hydrologic drought, we still have the supply challenges,” Nemeth said.

In the coming decades, climate change is projected to shrink the amount of water California can deliver in an average year. The Newsom administration’s long-term water plans call for California to prepare for an estimated 10% decrease in the state’s water supply by 2040.

According to the U.S. Drought Monitor website, about 41% of the state is currently classified as being abnormally dry or in a moderate drought. The unusually dry regions include large portions of Northern California and the southeastern corner of the state.

“We have full reservoirs. That’s a really good thing. But we also have dry conditions on the horizon. We’ve had really high temperatures this summer that are kind of reminiscent of the summer of 2020,” at the beginning of the last drought, Nemeth said. “So at the onset of yet another year that may provide a degree of extremes, we know we continue to have these counties that we consider to be kind of drought hot spots still because of supply problems, and we’re ready to address those issues as they arise.”