 |
| Vice President Kamala Harris and Governor Tim Walz present a joyful and united front at a campaign rally at Desert Diamond Arena in Glendale, Arizona. (Image Credit: Gage Skidmore/Flickr) |
Kamala Harris’s unstoppable presidential campaign seemed to speed toward an assured victory. The polls in her favor, the flush of never-ending campaign donations, a mountain of glowing endorsements, and her steady grasp of the issues declared her a winner. Then the numbers trickled in from the election results. They shocked the nation. President-elect Donald Trump won the presidency with the popular vote and electoral vote. As dedicated Democrats ponder what caused Kamala Harris’s campaign to falter so hard without even an inkling of a fatal flaw, I posit that Vice President Kamala Harris was missing key resources that, in retrospect, could have saved her presidential bid.
Deflated Perceptions of Inflation
 |
| Consumers often found themselves racing against inflation in a ill-fated attempt to maintain their standard of living. (Image Credit: Petra Wessman/Flickr) |
Economic
optimism and satisfaction
about personal finances correlated strongly with polling success for
Kamala Harris. Another marker of a Kamala Harris supporter is whether
the individual believed gas prices in the local neighborhood were
decreasing.
In order for Kamala Harris to dominate the 2024 election, it was
imperative for voters to believe that they experienced a positive boost in
their personal finances, or at least optimism that financial
fortunes would improve in their foreseeable futures. Likewise, the national polls detected a pattern of decreased polling success for Harris with voters who felt pessimistic about their financial futures. The effects of inflation on grocery prices and rising bills still felt dramatic for voters nationwide, even though peak inflation faded away.
Harris’s presidential bid was undeniably compromised by voters in
the throes of financial precariousness and who survived paycheck to paycheck.
Whenever Trump lambasted the Biden administration’s record on the economy, a
slew of economists often retorted Trump’s claims by presenting official data that placed inflation at 2.9 percent. Yet, the memory of inflation
outpacing incomes at nine percent is still fresh in Main Street’s memory.
“Inflation has not faded as an issue,” said Justin McCarthy, a
spokesperson for Gallup.
Samuel Negron, a Pennsylvania state constable and member of the
large Puerto Rican community in the city of Allentown, discussed how inflation affected him negatively. “Out here, you pay $5 for a dozen eggs. It used to be $1, or even 99
cents.” He added, “A lot of
us have woken up, in my opinion, from Democratic lies that things have
been better. We realized things were better then.”
Many
Democratic strategists acknowledge the official figures that point to
lowered
inflation. According to them, the electorate’s discontent was attributed to
Kamala Harris’s failure to adjust their perspective on the economy and
accept these facts. “Where I don’t think she’s done a good enough job is, [Trump]
gets away with saying, ‘The economy is the worst it’s ever been, there’s
more unemployment, inflation is the highest it’s ever been.’ None of
that is true,” said Steve Jarding, a Democratic strategist. It appears that Kamala Harris hesitated to initiate conversations about the economy. Another donor explained, “Her economic message
hasn’t broken through,” the donor said. “And the economy is the issue
most people care about. She narrowed the gap a little on the issue, but
she’s left a lot of people wondering about her vision.”
The economic proposal Kamala Harris introduced seemed to sidestep concerns about inflation by identifying price gouging as the focal point for rising prices.
The focus on price gouging attempted to conjure populist
sentiment against corrupt corporations colluding against the American
people. The proposal to combat price gouging is weakened by
conservatives who successfully lodged
narratives into the public political discourse that the Biden administration mishandled the economy and was
unable to tame inflation. The price gouging proposal also does not
alleviate concerns about high interest rates. “I
went to go purchase a car—the interest rates had skyrocketed,” said Nahim Uddin, a delivery driver and former Ford worker. The
34-year-old added, “That’s the whole reason I voted for him.”
Robert Reich, who served as secretary of labor under President Clinton, offered advice that Harris’s message needs to “center
on anti-elitist economics. She needs to respond forcefully to the one
issue that continues to be highest on the minds of most Americans: the
economy.” Economic elites do not necessarily care about a three-dollar
rise in eggs. Yet, for individuals surviving paycheck to paycheck, even
a small rise in grocery prices determines whether they will be able to eat
and pay bills or will need to forgo a few extra meals that week. The refusal to adequately address or empathize with the alarm that price rises inflict, no matter how minute, can be perceived as elitist. Ted Dietzler remarks, “Inflation is a big deal, and I don’t think Harris quite gets it. I think we’ll all just be better off with Trump back.”
More Months to Campaign
.jpg) |
| Kamala Harris built a fort composed of celebrities around her, which is a dramatic departure from the occasional sighting with a celebrity or influencer. Vice President Kamala Harris poses with singer Olivia Rodrigo Wednesday, July 14, 2021, in the Vice President’s West Wing Office of the White House. (Image Credit: Official White House Photo/Lawrence Jackson/Wikimedia Commons) |
Kamala Harris embarked on a historically steep uphill climb in hopes of winning the presidency. When President Joe Biden handed the baton to Harris for the 2024 presidential bid, “she had the lowest approval rating of any Vice-President since its records began.” Harris refused to be intimidated despite these shortcomings. Even before Kamala Harris was chosen as the 2024
presidential candidate, she was poised to steer an aggressive
campaign. At an event in D.C. last spring, she exclaimed, “Sometimes
people will open the door for you and leave it open. Sometimes they
won’t. And then you need to kick that fucking door down.” In time, the fundraising dollars funneled to the Harris campaign raced ahead of these initially
somber outlooks. The immense cash flow posed a worthy substitute for
the lack of time to campaign. The stakes were high since a massive presidential campaign was uncomfortably being squeezed into one hundred and six days. Obviously, each day would be monumental and have a major impact on the overall 2024 campaign. In just two days, Harris inspired fifty thousand volunteers to hop onboard, and in July 2024, her campaign hosted the largest Zoom call in history.
By August, Vice President Kamala Harris enjoyed widespread support from women, who made up 60 percent of her donors for the $361 million raised in August. Since July 2024, a staggering total of $615 million was raised by August 2024. Shortly afterwards, Kamala Harris set an all-time record by raising an unfathomable $1 billion only months into her campaign. Harris’s campaign also spent $1 billion in record time, perhaps in an effort to decompress the short presidential campaign.
Millions of dollars were funneled into high-profile, high-visibility advertising to counteract the electorate’s lack of familiarity with Vice President Kamala Harris. For example, it cost her presidential campaign millions of dollars to fly banners over four NFL games in October to pique the interest of male voters for Kamala Harris in swing states. Then $450,000 was reportedly expended daily from October 30, 2024, to the election day to display larger-than-life ads on the Las Vegas Sphere to fascinate voters in another swing state. Another $360 million was generously poured into TV and digital ads from Labor Day through Election Day.
Harris’s presidential campaign grappled with its limited time but was simultaneously bestowed a large war chest, beguiling the Kamala Harris campaign to unwisely channel the funds into unintentionally insulting voters with spectacles and a circus of celebrities. The campaign hoped the popularity from celebrities could transfer to Kamala Harris. These grand
and superficial displays, intended to camouflage the vulnerabilities of a
106-day campaign, undermined efforts that could have boosted Kamala
Harris the most—authentic connections. For example, questions about
Kamala Harris’s position on fracking remained unresolved, and a
conversation with the people could have helped. In response to questions
about her reversal on key issues such as fracking, Jeff Nobers,
executive director of the Builders Guild of Western Pennsylvania, a
union headquartered outside Pittsburgh, noted that “she
really needs to have face-to-face conversations with union leaders in
the areas most affected by this and go on the record of being a
supporter and proponent of natural gas—not just someone who won’t ban
fracking.” Face-to-face conversations had the potential to reach voters more effectively and earnestly than the splashy ads she opted to hide behind.
Less
money and more time might have sharpened her campaign strategy and nudged
Kamala Harris to embrace a more intimate approach to build her voter base. Harris’s fleeting campaign left
her with little time to connect with the voters, which
provided ample opportunity for the opposing party to distribute misleading and
disparaging images of her. Mark Shanahan, an American politics expert who teaches at the University of Surrey in the U.K., explains that “Harris
had too little time to introduce herself to America. She never really
landed her messages on the economy with great clarity, and the one area
we really thought would boost her, around reproductive rights, really
didn’t get the expected cut-through with voters.”
Perfected Pollsters
 |
| Vice President Kamala Harris speaks at a campaign rally at Desert Diamond Arena in Glendale, Arizona. (Image Credit: Gage Skidmore/Flickr) |
Faulty
polling dimishes a presidential candidate’s ability to fine-tune
the campaign’s approach. Many polls consistently offered compelling data proving why
Kamala Harris had clinched the popular vote, especially in
the battleground states. When inaccurate polls overestimate the success of a
presidential campaign, it creates overconfidence for that candidate and validates misguided political
strategies. The past several months preemptively
predicted Kamala Harris’s victory, even if the advantage was slim. The
elections were almost depicted as a simple formality to respect and
defend America’s democracy. Early
into Vice President Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign in August 2024, a USA
Today/Suffolk University Poll showed her amassing massive momentum with
a five percent “surge” ahead of Donald Trump. The USA
Today/Suffolk University Poll’s validated the decision to
gracefully end President Joe Biden’s campaign: “She has succeeded in doing
what Biden never could this year: lead Trump.”
In
September 2024, in the thicket of the presidential campaign, polls clamored to
report that Harris was widening her lead over Trump. These polls created an optimistic scenario that Kamala Harris had overcome her initial likeability issues and found her stride. The Reuters/Ipsos poll revealed that
Harris was leading the floundering Trump at 47 percent to his meager 40
percent. Reuters/Ipsos gathered data from an online, nationwide survey of 1,029 adults, which included 871
registered voters. A NBC News national poll once again revealed
numbers claiming that Harris held a five percent lead over Donald Trump.
According to NBC News, a convergence of factors “vaulted” Kamala Harris ahead of Donald
Trump, who, according to the polls, was fumbling at 44 percent due to
perceptions of his incompetency. Harris’s low favorability appeared to no longer cripple her campaign
since her favorability rating made a historical 16-point jump since July 2024.
The advantage that Trump held on the economy and inflation with the electorate was downplayed as a petty footnote.
Optimism
for Kamala
Harris soared to unimaginable heights after the debate. National news outlets
collectively declared Harris’s debate a victory. These declarations insinuated that the polls, such as Yahoo News/YouGov polls, were simply reflecting her resounding debate win. According to the Yahoo
News/YouGov’s poll conducted after September 10, 2024, Harris secured a five percent lead over Donald Trump at 50 percent
to his 45 percent. These polls were accompanied by explanations that her debate performance endeared her to
the public and validated her as a viable candidate. Another post-debate poll suggested that Harris had surpassed Trump by six percent due to her outstanding debate performance. The Morning Consult pollster surveyed 11,022 “likely US voters from
Sept. 13-15” and found that support for Harris was 51 percent while for
Trump was 45 percent. Once again, winning the debate was cited as the reason for her lead over Trump. In October
2024, a New York Times/Siena poll of 3,385 voters reported that Kamala
Harris was leading Donald Trump nationally by three percent. Another well-respected poll, the Economist/YouGov Poll, showed that Vice
President Kamala Harris led former President Trump by four percent from
1,604 surveyed through online interviews from October 6-7.
The
final polls in November 2024 continued to present data affirming that Vice
President Kamala Harris sustained a slight edge over former President
Donald Trump. Just a few days before the election, the Marist Poll
graphed out her four percent lead over Trump nationally, which I’m sure
caused the Harris campaign to share a sigh of relief. Even
international polls leaned toward a Harris victory, such as the renowned
British pollster, Focaldata. The Focaldata researchers actually
admonished other pollsters for “giving the impression Trump is stronger
than he really is.” They touted an innovative polling technique to generate more confidence
in their data and had access to 31,000 voters across the United States.
Focaladata’s novel MRP model, which stands for “multilevel regression
and post-stratification,” builds precise predictions based off demographic data
derived from a nationwide sample. James Kanagasooriam, Focaldata’s
chief research officer, authoritatively noted this MRP model “has shown a
Trump win throughout the campaign and only in the final update has it
nudged Democrat.”
ABC News/Ipsos promoted an image of a faltering Donald Trump against a
valiant Kamala Harris, with Trump barely trailing her 49 percent lead at 46
percent. Research conducted by Langer Research Associates consistently linked high polling numbers to Harris, from 49 percent in August 13, 2024, to
50 percent in October 8, 2024, and stabilizing at 49 percent on November
1, 2024. For Donald Trump, there was a peak at 48 percent on October 8, 2024, and the eventual decline on November 1, 2024, to 46 percent.
Policy Positions that Pleases the Battleground Voters
 |
| Kamala Harris announces her VP running mate, Tim Walz in Philadelphia PA on August 6th 2024. Josh Shaprio, the Governor of Pennsylvania, speaks prior to the announcement. Many speculated that she would announce the Pennsylvania Governor to strengthen her position in the battleground state and demonstrate her support for fracking. (Image Credit: Jared Polin/Flickr) |
Historically, presidential candidates change their policy stances to better align with the electorate, in response to new information, or to address the nation’s shifting needs. However,
for a candidate with a little more than one hundred days to
campaign, switching one slight stance or applying a cosmetic adjustment to the
platform can feel seismic to the stressed-out electorate. Kamala Harris
adamantly stated in a CNN interview with Dana Bash, Chief Political
Correspondent, on August 29, 2024, that despite a recent shift in her
policy perspectives, the core values that influence her policy decisions
have not changed. Although Harris expressed an honorable sentiment, voters were not convinced. Many voters do not possess the experience or knowledge to
trace complex policy changes and confirm that they match stable values.
Therefore, candidates should understand that all policy changes are
accepted at face value.
In this same interview, Dana Bash challenged Kamala Harris on a notable
shift regarding fracking. Dana Bash asked, “When you were in Congress, you
supported the Green New Deal, and in 2019, you said, quote, ‘There’s no
question, I’m in favor of banning fracking’. Fracking, as you know, is a
pretty big issue, particularly in your must-win state of Pennsylvania. Do
you still want to ban fracking?” Kamala Harris responded in the
affirmative for fracking and reiterated that her switch was made
public in 2020. The willingness to change a strongly held stance can be interpreted positively as political maturity and flexibility. But Harris’s inability to capture the presidency suggests that voters were too afraid to
risk
the presidential office on a politically flighty candidate who might
change stances that voters depend on once inducted as president.
 |
| Vice President Kamala Harris delivers remarks on water infrastructure investment, Friday, February 3, 2023, at the Belmont Water Treatment Plant in Philadelphia. Kamala Harris’s well-known commitment to environmental issues caused her shift to support fracking to appear dubious. (Image Credit: Official White House Photo/Lawrence Jackson) |
Pennsylvania is the country’s second-highest gas-producing state. The livelihoods of Pennsylvanians are too intertwined with the fossil fuel industry to accept Harris’s reversal without substantial evidence that her reversal is permanent. David Taylor, head of the Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association, a Harrisburg-based industry group, commented on Harris’s fracking
reversal. “Simply
to flip flop and say, ‘Oh, I didn’t mean that, my position is the
opposite now,’ that just strikes me as being completely opportunistic
and insincere.” David Taylor alludes to the harrowing possibility that
Harris may flip again once in office if it is politically
advantageous. It was too easy for conservatives to drill the
message that her
reversal was contrived and fleeting. “She specifically said she wants to ban
fracking. She said it,” Rep. Guy Reschenthaler (R-Pa.), the chief deputy
whip in the U.S. House who represents the Pittsburgh area. “The problem for Harris is her track record is too long to
sidestep it in a sprint to win Pennsylvania.”
Even
if many vehemently oppose Donald Trump’s platform, he has consistently
stuck to each of his policy positions with confidence, even if
misguided. In the Hill’s article, “What does Kamala Harris
really stand for?” Trump’s longstanding policy goals are outlined by verbatim:
“Specifically, Trump has consistently fought to secure our border;
reduce taxes; beef up law enforcement and make our streets safe; lighten
regulation, allowing businesses to thrive; oppose unfair trade policies
that send jobs overseas; strengthen our military; exit globalist
treaties, such as the Paris climate accord, that disadvantage the U.S.;
promote school choice; support Israel; and yes, make America great
again.” His policy positions are the core components of his well-known political brand.
In August 2024, as a new presidential candidate, Kamala Harris was still
teasing out policy goals in a bid to win over the battleground voters
and move closer to the center. In 2019, according to the Hill “She
backed a ban on fracking; mandatory gun buybacks, i.e. gun
confiscation; taxpayer-funded sex-change surgeries for prison inmates;
racial reparations; decriminalizing illegal immigration; defunding the
police; eliminating Immigration and Customs Enforcement; “Medicare for
All”; the Green New Deal; and allowing felons to vote.” Harris has now disavowed or denied these left-leaning policy positions, including her stance to defund the police.
Harris has cooked up policy positions that are more palpable to the
general electorate. These positions contrast sharply with her historical advocacy of
liberal policies. Her position would have been stronger if she adopted
these moderate policy aims before the presidential campaign, not just when they were politically advantageous. Even
post-election, a sizeable amount of voters still feel too confused to
pinpoint
whether they agreed with her policies or not. For example, a Democratic
strategist
agreed that Harris’s messaging on the economy “left a lot to be
desired.” “I still think there are folks out there who can’t tell you
what she plans to do,” the strategist said. “That should have been
something our side hammered home every day.”
A Manual for the Manosphere
 |
| Kamala Harris supporters in Minneapolis, Minnesota jokingly poke at JD Vance’s slander against childless woman with a ‘Cats for Kamala’ campaign meme. (Image Credit: Cocoabiscuit/Flickr) |
High-profile endorsements from Jimmy Carter, 82 U.S. Nobel Peace Prize winners, 111 former Republican officials, and Rudy Giuliani’s daughter, Caroline Rose Giuliani, uplifted Kamala Harris as a political superstar. But the manosphere’s cold snub of Vice President Kamala Harris eclipsed
them all and dimmed her star power. Harris also garnered the endorsements of 400 economists and
former policymakers
who warned that former President Trump’s policy proposals would damage the
U.S. economy. “It is a choice between inequity, economic injustice, and uncertainty
with Donald Trump or prosperity, opportunity, and stability with Kamala
Harris, a choice between the past and the future.” The exhortation continued, “With
Kamala Harris in the White House, workers, families, and businesses can
be confident that they have a president who will work relentlessly to
build a strong, pro-growth economy for all Americans.” These lofty
insights from economic advisers were no match for the manosphere’s harsh
commentary on the struggles of everyday men. The manosphere dismissed 400 economists in lieu of infamous
figures who, in their opinion, embody toughness and masculinity, such
as Dana White, the president of the UFC fighting league. At Donald Trump’s
victory party, Dana White praised Trump as
one of “the most resilient, hardworking men I’ve ever met in my life.”
Then White acknowledged the manosphere, saying, “I wanna thank the Nelk Boys, Adin Ross, Theo Von, ‘Bussin
with the Boys,’ and last but not least, the mighty and powerful Joe
Rogan!” These are the men who matter to the manosphere. The absence
of women in leading or prominent roles in such an influential space is
noticeable. The manosphere is able to appeal to men all across the political spectrum and then maneuver them to the
far right over time.
Wikipedia defines the manosphere as “a diverse
collection of websites, blogs, and online forums promoting masculinity,
misogyny, and opposition to feminism.” Kamala
Harris needed an unprecedented template to connect with the manosphere
without endorsing or enabling their troubling misogyny. The
Independent’s title alone confirms the influence of the manosphere: “How
Joe Rogan and the right-wing ‘manosphere’ helped propel Trump to
victory in 2024.”
Elon Musk, a key fixture of the manosphere, wrote on X on election day, “The cavalry has arrived. Men are voting in record
numbers. They now realize everything is at stake.” Reaching out to the manosphere on multiple online platforms was central to Trump’s campaign strategy to win the bro vote. Trump’s ability to secure the approval of these vast male audiences who feel alienated partially
explains Trump’s resilience against his gaping vulnerabilities, such as his
criminal conviction. The strategy worked impeccably. Van Ricker, a 21-year-old
student who follows the Nelk Boys, told the Times he “really [wants]
Trump to win.” Another young male commented on their impact: “These guys have an influence on us young guys—we want to be like
them when we grow up,” Rylan Bogue, 22, told the Times. “They’re
dominating right now.”
Kamala Harris’s attempted involvement with the manosphere would have been
fraught with uncertainty and missteps but would have added a powerful woman’s
presence in these male-exclusive spaces and given her the chance to confront the
manosphere one-on-one.
World Peace
.jpg) |
| Kamala Harris, on July 25, 2024: “Today, I had a frank and constructive meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu about a wide range of issues, including my commitment to Israel’s security, the importance of addressing the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and the urgent need to get the ceasefire and hostage deal done.” (Image Credit: Office of the Vice President of the United States/Public Domain/Wikimedia Commons) |
The geopolitical crisis in the Middle East unexpectedly spilled over into the U.S. mainstream political scene. The ensuing
emotional trauma tumbled directly into the Democratic Party and
fatally fractured the coalitions within by creating irreconcilable identity crises. According to Palestinian
American organizer Linda Sarsour, Kamala Harris’s unwavering support of
Israel was a predominant obstacle that prevented her from appealing to undecided
voters and a large segment of Democratic voters. Democrats “made a
calculation that they did not need Arab American, Muslim American and
Palestinian American voters.” The conflict in the Middle East interrupted her campaign
frequently. Harris’s speech in Chandler, Arizona, was quickly interrupted by a
woman screaming, “Free, Free Palestine!” Rowan Imran, a Palestinian community activist, explained why the Harris-Walz lost her vote. “We can’t support anyone who enables
the killing of our people,” Imran said. “Our votes cannot be taken for
granted any longer.” Azza Abuseif, the
executive director of the Council on American Islamic Relations of
Arizona, said, “(Harris) has to do some serious work on this issue
if she wants to win a lot of these votes. “It has been a deal-breaker for many voters... and it’s a
situation that’s going to define her legacy later on.”
The same
sentiments were echoed in a rally in Michigan as protesters chanted, “Kamala! Kamala! You can’t hide! We won’t vote for genocide!”
Layla Elabed, a co-founder of
Uncommitted, told Harris, according to the group, “Michigan voters want to support you, but we need a policy that will
save lives in Gaza right now. I meet with community members every day in
Michigan who are losing tens and hundreds of family members in Gaza.
Right now, we need an arms embargo.” In an
interview with 60 minutes, Harris reiterated her support for Israel. Harris said, “I maintain
Israel has a right to defend itself. We would. And how it does so
matters. Far too many innocent Palestinians have been killed. This war
has to end.” Voters have been unsure about Harris’s stances on
many key issues, but Harris’s willingness to take sides regarding the
conflict in the Middle East and refuse to retract her unwavering support
of Israel deeply divided the Democratic party.
© 2024 Proudly Produced by Novelty Sense. All Rights Reserved.
Post a Comment