What does Kamala Harris need to do to seal the deal?

A standard liberal plaint goes like this:

How is it possible that Donald Trump still has a chance of winning November's election? He lies constantly! He says crazy stuff! He wants revenge on everybody! He seemingly has no knowledge of anything.

This is totally fair. But it doesn't matter. All of it has been priced in for a long time and something like 45+% of the electorate plans to vote for the guy anyway. Pointing this out over and over isn't going to change things.

The better question is why, given Trump's obvious faults, many non-insane people are still reluctant to just go ahead and vote for Kamala Harris. I understand the general problem: if you're a conservative, you don't like Democratic policies. And it doesn't help that Democrats have moved left over the past decade. I don't think Bill Clinton or Barack Obama (or Al Gore or John Kerry, for that matter) would have had much trouble besting Trump.

So this is the question: which deal breakers are still bothering center-right voters? Bret Stephens is a good bellwether for this crowd, and here's what he says he'd like to know about Harris:

What does Kamala Harris think the United States should do about the Houthis, whose assaults on commercial shipping threaten global trade, and whose attacks on Israel risk a much wider Mideast war?

....A few more questions for Harris: If, as president, she had intelligence that Iran was on the cusp of assembling a nuclear weapon, would she use force to stop it? Are there limits to American support for Ukraine, and what are they? Would she push for the creation of a Palestinian state if Hamas remained a potent political force within it? Are there any regulations she’d like to get rid of in her initiative to build three million new homes in the next four years? What role, if any, does she see for nuclear power in her energy and climate plans? If there were another pandemic similar to Covid-19, what might her administration do differently?... How about interest-rate policy, federal spending and the resilience of our supply chains?

There's nothing unfair here, except for the fact that virtually no presidential candidate is ever quizzed about stuff this detailed. More to the point, what's the alternative? Does Stephens have any idea what Trump's views are on any of this? Of course not. He's never said, and the odds are vanishingly small that he knows anything about any of it.

Here's how Stephens put it yesterday:

A Harris victory puts an untested leader in the White House at a moment of real menace from ambitious autocrats in Moscow, Beijing, Pyongyang and Tehran. A Trump victory means the country is again going to go crazy with all the cultural furies he unleashes, both for and against him. A Harris victory means four more years of misbegotten economic policies, like the threat to put controls on prices some federal bureaucrat deems to be too high. A Trump victory is dreadful for Ukraine. A Harris victory could be terrible for Israel. A Trump victory empowers people who don’t accept the results of an election. A Harris victory empowers a candidate who has never won a presidential primary and whose supporters want to jail their political opponent.

I get this even less. Untested? Sure, but that's better than Trump, who's been tested and found sorely wanting. Misbegotten economic policies? I don't know what those might be, and the price gouging thing is trivial. Israel? Harris has supported Israel her entire career. Jail for Trump? Sure, a lot of us would like to see Trump in an orange jumpsuit, but Jack Smith is prosecuting him because he broke the law, not out of any political retribution.

So I'm still a little puzzled. If you're a single-issue abortion voter, fine. If you want to deport every illegal immigrant in the country, fine. If you like the idea of putting a 20% tariff on everything that comes into the country, fine. But if this doesn't describe you—and you're moderately right of center and already loathe Trump—what precisely is it about Harris that still gives you pause? Roughly speaking, we know that she's a fairly ordinary Democrat. Beyond that, surely a bit of uncertainty is of little account against the sure certainty that Trump would be terrible?