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

Former ICE official falls short in Ohio battleground district GOP primary

Published

3 hours ago

May 6, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Former ICE official Madison Sheahan lost a GOP primary in a battleground Ohio House district on Tuesday, a relief to Republicans who worried she could sabotage their chances of flipping the seat.

Former state Rep. Derek Merrin won the GOP nomination in the 9th Congressional District for the second cycle in a row, and will face Democratic Rep. Marcy Kaptur in November. He lost to Kaptur by less than one percentage point in 2024.

Republicans see the seat as a prime pickup opportunity after the Ohio legislature redrew the state’s congressional map to make the district more favorable for Republicans.

Merrin’s victory comes with a sigh of relief from Republicans in the state who raised concerns about Sheahan’s background — she served as former deputy ICE director under former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem — being a soft target for Kaptur in a general election.

Sheahan drew attacks from fellow Republicans in the primary for her role in overseeing President Donald Trump’s aggressive immigration enforcement operations in major cities, which triggered violent confrontations and protests.

Those clashes culminated in the killing of two American citizens by immigration officials in Minneapolis. Sheahan launched her campaign days after the killing of Renee Good, but before the death of Alex Pretti.

Trump didn’t endorse ahead of the primary, but the race was defined in part by candidates seeking to be the most MAGA candidate in the field. Sheahan ran TV ads touting her role at ICE and her connection to the Trump administration. Merrin went up with an ad in the race’s final days highlighting the endorsement he received from Trump during his 2024 campaign.

Kaptur starts the general election fight with a significant resource advantage over Merrin. Federal Election Commission filings from mid-April showed Kaptur with $3.1 million in cash on hand, dwarfing Merrin’s $189,000 in reserves.

Both the DCCC and the NRCC are expected to invest significantly in the race.

Politics

‘The Kamala Harris problem’: Vance’s 2028 hopes hinge on Trump, Iowa Republicans say

Published

4 hours ago

May 6, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

DES MOINES, Iowa — Vice President JD Vance was greeted warmly by Republicans in Iowa on Tuesday, with would-be caucus goers and strategists optimistically curious about his potential as a 2028 presidential contender.

But first, they’re hoping he can help turn the economy around.

Vance’s fate is unavoidably linked to President Donald Trump’s. He’ll either carry the mantle of Trump’s accomplishments all the way into his own term in the White House — or be dragged down by Trump’s dismal approval ratings, which have spiraled amid an unpopular war in Iran and voters’ economic pessimism.

During Vance’s first trip as vice president to the early caucus state — where he was campaigning for Republican Rep. Zach Nunn at a rally in a manufacturing warehouse in this battleground House district — Vance’s close ties with Trump were on full display. He credited the president repeatedly for tariffs, tax cuts and agriculture industry aid. And he avoided any mention of 2028.

But his association with Trump’s agenda presents a high-risk, high-reward proposition that could make or break his political future, operatives and rallygoers said.

“That’s the risk of being part of an administration,” Iowa GOP strategist David Kochel said. “This is the Kamala Harris problem.”

Rep. Randy Feenstra, who is running for governor, said in between shaking hands with attendees that Iowans “absolutely” associate Vance with Trump and expressed confidence that the White House can deliver outcomes that benefit the state.

“We’re all in this together,” he said. “We trust Trump and the vice president and what they’re doing, and things are going to be great.”

Republicans in Iowa are loath to turn their back on Trump, the 2024 caucus winner who remains deeply popular among the base. Faded Trump-Vance campaign signs still line the rural roads around the state, and Iowa Republicans said they remained largely optimistic that Trump, with Vance by his side, can steer the economy in the right direction.

In a brief post-rally interview, Nunn said part of the benefit of the vice president’s trip was allowing Iowa Republican officials to “share what they want to see out of the next leader in 2028.”

But Americans’ patience for the administration’s economic policy to have a positive effect is wearing thin. A Washington Post/ABC News/Ipsos poll released on Sunday found 65 percent of Americans disapprove of Trump’s handling of the economy and 76 percent disapprove of Trump’s handling of cost of living issues. And even as Vance blamed former President Joe Biden’s administration for the teetering economy, an April POLITICO Poll found 46 percent of Americans feel Trump bears at least some responsibility for the state of the economy.

And the economic effects of Trump’s policies are particularly hard felt in Iowa’s vast agriculture industry. Trump’s tariff regime blocked off markets that had been reliable purchasers of U.S. agriculture goods, while the war in Iran has spiked the cost of diesel, which farmers depend on heavily.

Jake Chapman, a former president of the Iowa Senate who has advised multiple Republican presidential candidates in Iowa, said the conflict and the trade negotiations with other countries are top of mind for Iowa Republicans.

“A lot of people are thinking about foreign policy in particular, and how that impacts ag inputs and our agriculture economy,” he said.

In his speech, Vance acknowledged that the Trump administration hasn’t fully delivered on its economic promises. “We got a lot more work to do,” Vance told the crowd of hundreds. “We recognize that work. We’re excited about that work. That’s why you sent us to Washington, D.C.”

Still, those negative feelings towards Trump appear to be spilling over to Vance. That same poll found 48 percent of Americans disapprove of Vance — slightly worse than other senior Trump administration officials, including FBI Director Kash Patel, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and fellow potential 2028 candidate Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Rubio’s ascension in the 2028 shadow primary — both in the eyes of Americans and in standing with Trump’s inner circle — further complicates Vance’s path to the nomination. Eric Branstad, the son of former Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad and adviser to Trump’s three presidential campaigns in Iowa, said Vance’s portfolio may not resonate with Iowans as much as Rubio’s in an administration juggling multiple high-profile foreign conflicts.

“They’ve watched the secretary of state completely perform. He’s been put in all of the tough spots, and he has overperformed,” Branstad said. “The vice president is performing great. It’s just not been as noticeable as the secretary of state.”

Vance, however, has gotten an early start on building a campaign infrastructure, should he so choose to activate it. He has been a frequent surrogate and fundraiser for the GOP’s midterm operation and has campaigned for Republicans in battleground seats around the country. On Tuesday, he voted in Ohio’s competitive 1st District GOP primary and headlined a fundraiser in Oklahoma before travelling to Iowa.

“He’s the man who’s leading the charge to win the midterms,” Nunn said during his remarks.

Even as Vance stayed focused on this year’s elections on Tuesday, some Republicans are ready to look beyond the midterms. GOP gubernatorial candidate Adam Steen said on the outskirts of the rally he thinks Iowa Republicans are eager to organize around the next generation of party leadership.

“I don’t know why not just start talking about 2028,” Steen said. “We need to know who we’re going to be getting behind. And if they did that now, I don’t think it’d offend anybody. I think it’d be a great thing.”

The vice president’s office declined to comment on Vance’s thinking about a future presidential campaign.

Whether or not the vice president can carry the ideological torch for Trump’s political movement may depend on how closely Vance — or any 2028 hopeful — can align with Trump. Iowa GOP Chair Jeff Kaufmann said at the rally he doesn’t believe the next Republican presidential nominee necessarily has to appeal directly to Trump’s base to be successful.

“The Republican Party is multifaceted,” Kaufmann said. “We have MAGA voters… We have Christian evangelicals, we have business, we have Libertarians. I think all of them together are going to unite around some of the basic principles that everybody shares.”

Yet being Trump’s vice president brings certain advantages with Republican voters. Even if Vance isn’t afforded the goodwill that brought the president a dominant wire-to-wire favorite in the 2024 Republican primaries, Kochel said Vance “gets one of the gold tickets” in the contest.

“[Vance] will be the front-runner going into any caucuses that we have here in Iowa,” GOP governor candidate and state Rep. Eddie Andrews said on the sidelines of Tuesday’s rally.

But Iowa caucusgoers are notoriously scrupulous when vetting future world leaders. And Nunn acknowledged that Vance will at some point need to forge his own path to leading the party.

“Nobody can walk in Donald Trump’s footsteps, because it’s Donald Trump,” Nunn said.