Politics

One sentence sums up Kamala Harris’ misread of the election

Published

1 year ago

November 11, 2024

One sentence sums up Kamala Harris’ misread of the election

Why Vice President Kamala Harris was so thoroughly trounced by President-elect Donald Trump is going to take weeks, months and years to answer. But one piece of the puzzle can be identified now, by taking a closer look at her appearance on a talk show in October.

On ABC’s “The View,” co-host Sunny Hostin asked Harris, “What, if anything, would you have done something differently than President Biden during the past four years?”

“There is not a thing that comes to mind … and I’ve been a part of most of the decisions that have had impact, the work that we have done,” Harris responded, before going on to discuss some of their shared accomplishments.

Later in the interview Harris amended her answer. She said, unlike Biden, she’d appoint a Republican to her Cabinet. It was a minor symbolic gesture, and her pledge that she would not let “pride get in the way of a good idea” offered from across the political aisle received polite applause.

Harris wanted to play it safe at a time when playing it safe was the wrong move.

Harris’ flat-footedness in that moment was an act of political malpractice — and a sign of how she and the Democratic party establishment misread the political moment. This was a “change election,” largely because of widespread lingering resentment over inflation, and Harris wanted to play it safe at a time when playing it safe was the wrong move.

Harris was in a tricky position during the campaign — she was running simultaneously as incumbent and newcomer, and it’s difficult to create distance from an administration whose accomplishments one wants credit for. But it was far from an inescapable predicament: Competent politicians often get away with talking out of both sides of their mouth. Harris could’ve said that she took pride in working with Biden in shepherding the U.S. out of the Covid crisis, but that she could hear the American people say that they were still hurting, and that she stood for a sharply new perspective on the economy that was laser-focused on bringing down costs.

All the evidence demanded such a focus as Harris took the reins. The polls showed that the economy was the top issue for voters, that a majority recalled Trump’s economy fondly, that Trump was trusted more than Biden on the economy, and that most people in swing states were looking for sweeping change. Biden has been one of the most unpopular presidents in modern American history, and the polls suggested that the main reason, other than his age, was inflation. The results of the race bore this out as well: Thomas Wood, a political scientist at Ohio State University, told The Atlantic that the astonishing breadth of Trump’s improvement across a wide variety of even non-Trump friendly demographics since 2020 suggested a “really simple story … that secular dissatisfaction with Biden’s economic stewardship affected most demographic groups in a fairly homogeneous way.”

To be fair, Harris did not ignore the issue of inflation. She proposed building more affordable housing and providing down payment assistance for first-time homebuyers, and she pitched an expanded child tax credit that she said would help families offset costs. But after taking criticism over her boldest-sounding and most universally beneficial proposal for bringing down prices — a ban on price gouging in grocery and food industries — she downplayed and distanced herself from the idea, apparently out of fear of coming across as a radical. Furthermore, her limited discussion of inflation lacked a clear story or theory of society. Who was to blame for why everything became so expensive? She left hammering corporate greed on the table, and her initial broadsides against big business ebbed as she sought out the input and support of Wall Street and Silicon Valley and even chose billionaires as surrogates.

Harris’ overall economic vision also sounded at odds with the broader political era. Her economic program was titled the “opportunity economy” and featured middle-class tax cuts and assistance for entrepreneurs. It sounded more like a New Democrat presiding over a consensus-backed economy in the 1990s or 2000s than it did a post-Biden Democrat in an era of populism and fiery rhetoric about costs, monopolies, inequality and the social dislocations and costs of neoliberalism and globalization. Later in October, talk show host Stephen Colbert essentially asked Harris the same question she’d been asked on “The View” — how she’d differ from Biden — and again she seemed uneasy articulating what should’ve been her clearest point of focus. She delivered the following pablum that would not have been out of place in a speech from a neoliberal Democrat talking about gutting welfare:

When we think about the significance of what this next generation of leadership looks like where I could be elected president. Frankly, I love the American people, I believe in our country, I love that it is our character and nature to be an ambitious people, we have aspirations, we have dreams, we have incredible work ethic. And I just believe that we can create and build upon the success that we’ve achieved in a way that we continue to grow opportunity and in that way grow the strength of our nation.

After that she finally got around to talking about small business assistance and her first-time homebuyer assistance programs. But the entire framing was odd and unfocused, and the initiatives she mentioned were not universal.

On the whole, Harris’ campaign was thematically diffuse, cycling through different focal points every week, whether through casting the opposition as “weird” and the Democratic ticket as normcore, or talking of “joy” and reclaiming patriotism, or focusing on protecting democracy, which served as her closing argument. She tried to be a lot of things to a lot of people, using ambiguity to present herself as a likable and generic Democrat who sought unity, took interest in technocratic reforms and sought not to upset the corporate world or international order. A key part of her strategy, as many political observers noted, was harnessing nebulous positive vibes. She used her telegenic, quick-to-laugh comportment and the intrigue surrounding the daring nature of her improbable candidacy to whip up excitement. She exhorted voters to reject Trump as an authoritarian criminal. There was a rational strategy here, but it was predicated on a faulty premise: that most voters could place their trust in a status quo agent.

To say that Harris should have run a provocative change campaign focused on finding ways to make America more livable isn’t to say she would have won if she did. She was handed the reins from an extremely unpopular politician. She only had three months to make her case. She was running as a woman of color and faced an opposition that weaponized racism and sexism against her. And people would have to not just hear a different message, but believe it. If she had attempted to reinvent herself as a barnstorming populist type, then she would have faced accusations of phoniness. And it would be a tall — if not impossible — task for the vice president to extricate herself from her own administration’s record on inflation. Every governing party facing election in a developed country this year has lost vote share — a data point suggesting that post-pandemic inflation is lethal to incumbents.

Still, there are lessons to be gleaned. Even though inflation was mostly not Biden’s fault and has cooled off, Harris’ rhetoric and policy should have been oriented around acknowledging how much people hate it and how to take their minds off of it. The latter issue involves developing a positive, attractive and coherent vision of the future. Democrats cannot assume that an identity as a guardian of democracy is sufficient to turn out voters or serve as a bulwark against the siren call of right-wing populism. The party must provide a clear and compelling answer to the problems posed by the collapse of the neoliberal consensus or risk becoming irrelevant.

It is painful to recognize that there is a critical mass of our fellow citizens who are seemingly willing to risk or discard multicultural democracy and basic civic decency in response to a limited episode of inflation. But the consequences of denying that reality are even worse. And it is absurd to suggest that what America was most desperate for was a Republican in a Democrat’s Cabinet.

Zeeshan Aleem

Zeeshan Aleem is a writer and editor for BLN Daily. Previously, he worked at Vox, HuffPost and Blue Light News, and he has also been published in, among other places, The New York Times, The Atlantic, The Nation, and The Intercept. You can sign up for his free politics newsletter here.

Politics

Pope Leo XIV condemns war, rejects claims of divine backing

Published

10 minutes ago

April 10, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Pope Leo XIV on Friday issued a sweeping condemnation of war, continuing to reject the idea that military action can bring about peace or freedom as the Trump administration and other leaders use religion to justify the U.S.-Israel war in Iran.

“God does not bless any conflict,” Leo wrote on X. “Anyone who is a disciple of Christ, the Prince of Peace, is never on the side of those who once wielded the sword and today drop bombs.”

Military force, he added, will not result in peace or freedom — that “comes only from the patient promotion of coexistence and dialogue among peoples.” He did not mention President Donald Trump or other leaders by name in the post on X.

Trump, who describes himself as a Christian, but not Catholic, has invoked faith several times throughout his term as a means to justify his actions.

Trump on Monday told reporters at a White House press briefing that he believes God supports the Iran war “because God is good” and wants to “see people taken care of.”

Leo had previously condemned Trump’s threat from earlier this week to destroy Iranian civilization.

He called the threat “truly unacceptable” and urged that the conflict in the Middle East “is only provoking more hatred.”

At a Palm Sunday mass, Leo insisted that no one could use God to justify war, telling the tens of thousands of people gathered before him that God “does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them.”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has framed the Iran war, which reached a temporary ceasefire Tuesday after six weeks of fighting, as divinely sanctioned — often turning to prayer and belief that God is on the side of the U.S. military.

At a Pentagon church service held weeks after the Iran war began, Hegseth, who is also a Christian, but not Catholic, read a prayer that called for violence against military enemies.

“Let every round find its mark against the enemies of righteousness and our great nation,” he prayed during the livestreamed service. “Give them wisdom in every decision, endurance for the trial ahead, unbreakable unity, and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy.”

Politics

Harris gives her clearest signal she is mounting a 2028 presidential bid

Published

2 hours ago

April 10, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

NEW YORK — Kamala Harris just gave the Democratic Party the most explicit sign yet she’ll run for president in 2028.

“Listen, I might, I might. I’m thinking about it,” Harris told the Rev. Al Sharpton at the National Action Network convention on Friday, when he asked her whether she will run again in 2028. “I’ll keep you posted,” she said as she walked off the stage, concluding a roughly 40-minute appearance that was peppered with cheers and a standing ovation from attendees.

The former vice president has toyed with the idea before, but her comments Friday took on a new meaning in front of an audience full of Black lawmakers, influential power brokers and voters at what amounted to the first major cattle-call for the potential 2028 Democratic field.

“I know what the job is and what it requires,” she told Sharpton on stage.

Harris was the sixth possible 2028 contender to take the stage at the conference for a fireside chat with Sharpton, a tacit acknowledgement that whether the hopefuls ultimately decide to run or not, they know they can’t skip this room. But Harris was received with the most enthusiasm from the audience compared to any of the Democrats who spoke earlier this week, including Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.).

The crowd in the packed ballroom chanted, “Run again! Run again!”

At one point, the cheers for Harris grew to such a tenor, Sharpton jokingly admonished the crowd: “This is a convention, not a revival.”

Politics

Why Trump’s endorsement hasn’t been a ‘close out move’ for Louisiana Senate

Published

9 hours ago

April 10, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

When President Donald Trump endorsed Rep. Julia Letlow against Sen. Bill Cassidy, many thought she had a clear path to the upper chamber.

But three months after Trump pushed Letlow into the field, the race stands as a tight three-way contest between her, Cassidy and State Treasurer John Fleming, with all of them appearing to have a real chance to make the mid-May runoff.

That has some Louisiana Republicans reconsidering whether Cassidy could survive in spite of his breaks with the president, including his 2021 vote to convict Trump in his second impeachment trial, and his low polling numbers compared to Letlow and Fleming. Others are wondering if Letlow might end up locked in a runoff with Fleming that could prove much more challenging to her chances.

She has been massively outspent by Cassidy on the airwaves, still has low name ID compared to her opponents, and faces in Fleming another candidate with MAGA appeal and his own network of support. That’s making it harder for her to capitalize on Trump’s endorsement and rally the base behind her as she runs her first statewide campaign under a compressed timeline.

The outcome will be a test for Trump, whose meddling in the Louisiana Senate race may reveal the power of his endorsement at a time when his approval is at an all time low — as well as the viability of his efforts to seek vengeance against Republicans who cross him.

“The Trump endorsement has not had a close-out move. Cassidy was ready for her,” said GOP state Rep. Mike Bayham, who has not publicly supported any candidate yet. “They defined her before she introduced herself.”

Public polling gives a muddied picture of the primary, with polls from late March showing Letlow holding a narrow lead. A recent memo from Letlow’s campaign highlights an internal poll showing her leading with 29 percent, followed by Fleming at nearly 24 percent and Cassidy at nearly 20 percent. It also includes potential runoff scenarios showing her leading Cassidy 50 percent to 24 percent and in a statistical dead heat with Fleming in a head-to-head matchup.

“We’re in the middle of a dogfight,” said Mark Harris, a Cassidy aide. “Everyone’s expectation is that she would shoot to a large lead and that we’d all be running from behind. But frankly I think they just weren’t ready for this race.”

Letlow’s campaign claims that she has the most momentum in the race. She’s been endorsed by the Jefferson Parish Republican Executive Committee, one of the largest GOP groups in the state, and has the backing of Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry, who has clashed with Cassidy and made the unusual move of selecting her over a Republican incumbent.

“We are talking about an incumbent who is underwater,” said a Letlow campaign aide. “Julia is surging. Her lead continues to grow the more the people learn that she’s endorsed by the President.”

Trump and his allies haven’t stepped in much for Letlow beyond his initial endorsement — at least not yet. The Robert F. Kennedy Jr.-aligned Make America Healthy Again PAC has pledged to spend $1 million to boost Letlow and oust Cassidy, who has been openly skeptical of the Health secretary. But Louisiana Republicans are still waiting to see if the president’s super PAC, MAGA Inc., will spend any of the $300 million cash it has on hand.

MAGA Inc. has been tightlipped about its midterm spending plans so far and whether it will toss money to Letlow for the primary or runoff.

A MAGA Inc. PAC spokesperson and the White House did not respond to requests for comment.

Cassidy, boosted by a massive war chest, has been outspending Letlow for weeks. His campaign has combined with the Louisiana Freedom Fund, an outside group backing the senator, to pour more than $14 million into the race on ads, most of them attacks against Letlow. Letlow’s campaign and outside groups have combined to spend just $4.6 million, according to the tracking service AdImpact. Federal Election Commission fundraising reports next week will reveal her fundraising capabilities and if she’ll be able to keep pace with Cassidy’s haul.

Letlow’s ads have almost exclusively focused on her endorsement from Trump, rather than attacks on Cassidy. But he’s gone hard after her.

In recent days, Cassidy’s campaign has highlighted a video of Letlow praising diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives while interviewing for a job as president of the University of Louisiana at Monroe in 2020. They’re also hammering her for trading stocks of defense contractors amid the war in Iran.

In response to Cassidy’s DEI attacks, Letlow has pointed to his support for Biden’s economic stimulus package that included equity provisions to help underserved schools and businesses impacted by the pandemic.

Letlow told a local news outlet in March that DEI initiatives at the university had been “presented to us as something that would help students achieve the American dream,” but that she realized that the diversity push was “hijacked by the radical left and turned into indoctrination.”

“Cassidy’s problem in this race is that he’s trying to make it an ideological race. The problem with that framing is that he has spent the past four years trying to undermine the president,” the Letlow aide said, referencing Cassidy’s initial refusal to support Trump’s third presidential bid and call for Trump to drop out after the FBI raided Mar-A-Lago in an investigation of his handling of classified documents.

Part of Letlow’s challenge is that she hails from a rural district in north Louisiana far from the population hubs of New Orleans and Baton Rouge. Her district is more culturally aligned with the deep South and starkly different from the Catholic, Cajun and Creole influence throughout the southern half of the state.

“People haven’t met her. She’s almost invisible as a candidate,” said East Baton Rouge Parish Chair Woody Jenkins, who has not decided who he supports.

“When you’re just meeting someone new in politics, and you hear all these bad things, you might have a first impression, but you tend to start having second thoughts,” he added. “And he’s just relentless in it.”

And then there’s the Fleming factor.

“The two runoff spots are wide open,” said Matt Kay, Caddo Parish GOP chair, who described himself as an “anybody but Cassidy voter.” Kay said he was initially leaning toward Letlow, but after he saw her comments in support of DEI, he became interested in Fleming, who he sees as “more in touch with conservative voters.”

Fleming has largely self-funded his campaign, which launched last year. One of the founding members of the House Freedom Caucus, he’s made inroads with Republican voters, especially in rural communities, with his stark opposition to carbon capture, which he says is a dangerous process that risks water contamination, costs taxpayers and violates property rights.

Both Fleming and Letlow have been aggressively attacking Cassidy for his impeachment vote, calling it a deep betrayal of MAGA and disqualification for the Senate. Louisiana is conducting closed primaries for the first time this year, a change that Fleming thinks will benefit conservatives like him.

“Number one, you have a mistrust of Senator Cassidy amongst Republican based voters,” said John Couvillon, a pollster who works on behalf of Fleming. “Number two, since he does have a relatively Republican voting record, that doesn’t get him any great affections from Democrats either. So he’s kind of the proverbial man without a political country.”

But some Republicans no longer feel that Cassidy’s vote in 2021 to convict Trump should be disqualifying, and they’re reluctant to relinquish his leadership positions to a freshman senator. They also point out that Cassidy, despite expressing concerns about Kennedy’s rejection of some vaccines, ultimately voted for his confirmation, along with the rest of the Trump Cabinet.

“I don’t believe his vote to convict President Trump should be the reason we ought to oust him,” said Kelby Daigle, chair of the St. Martin Parish GOP. “I think it’s silly. We should move on. It’s old news.”

Andrew Howard contributed to this report.