Politics
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 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.
After the Democratic National Committee punted on two resolutions in August that highlighted the party’s deep divide on Israel, DNC Chair Ken Martin convened a task force “to have the conversation” and “bring solutions back to our party.”
Seven months later, the Middle East working group — meeting today in-person for the second time — still has work to do.
The group, composed of eight DNC members with backgrounds in Jewish and Palestinian advocacy, has struggled to meet consistently or coalesce around shared objectives. Part of that is due to the difficulties of coordinating across schedules and time zones, with at least one member actively running for office. But atop those hurdles come the challenges of productive discourse about one of the party’s most contentious debates among a cohort with sharp ideological divides.
“People aren’t comfortable with being uncomfortable,” Steph Newton, a DNC member from Oregon who’s part of the working group, told Blue Light News. “These uncomfortable discussions are how we’re going to be able to move the party forward and find a solution.”
The working group met for the first time in December at the DNC’s winter meeting in Los Angeles, and convened virtually two more times, on March 1 and March 18. Those meetings mostly centered on figuring out what the group should be working on in the first place. “Most of the time, what we’ve talked about is, ‘What are we supposed to be doing?’” said James Zogby, another member from D.C.
The working group comes as divides over support for Israel remain a persistent liability for Democrats, and as AIPAC’s involvement in midterm primaries presents a new purity test for candidates. “No one gets anywhere by trying to shout the other side of the room — as a matter of fact, I think that would be harmful politics,” Andrew Lachman, another working group member from California, said.
A DNC spokesperson emphasized the group’s goal is to figure out how to talk to voters about the Middle East in a way that ultimately helps the party build coalitions and win elections.
The group’s inaction so far came into sharper focus yesterday at the DNC’s spring meeting in New Orleans, when the party’s resolutions committee considered one brought by Joe Salas, another member of the working group from California, to recognize Palestinian statehood.
“It is necessary for the Democratic National Committee to address the ongoing heinous and illegal acts against the Palestinian people. Some here may say that there is a working group. To that, I say that we are in a midterm year and they are yet to produce any results in a moment where anger has only grown amongst the American people,” said Cameron Landon, VP of the College Democrats of America, who spoke on behalf of Salas.
Salas, who wasn’t at the meeting, submitted the resolution without discussing it with the other members of the Middle East working group, according to Zogby and Newton, who said she was “surprised” to see it in the resolutions packet.
“I would assume that if we’re on a work group together discussing these issues, you say, ‘Hey, work group members, teammates, I want to submit a resolution on X, Y and Z. I know we’re working toward something like this together. Is this something that we can discuss?’” Newton said.
Deborah Cunningham-Skurnik, another member of the group from California, told the resolutions panel yesterday that there were “some parts of it I would like to go bit by bit over with” Salas.
Salas said in an interview ahead of the vote he wouldn’t attend the New Orleans meeting because “I’m just gonna let them have those words and reject them, accept them, modify them, whatever they want to do.” He didn’t respond to further requests for comment about why he didn’t tell the working group he submitted the resolution.
The panel ultimately referred those resolutions back to the working group — with a warning. “As a body, we recommend this going back to the task force,” said Ron Harris, the resolutions committee co-chair. “But then we can put some — I don’t want to say ‘constraints,’ but expectations that we hear back.”
John Verdejo, a DNC member from North Carolina, was more direct. “It can’t just be we have a task force and then the next time we have a DNC meeting, it just comes up again. No, we want to see your progress. You want to have a task force? You want to make the hard changes, have the hard discussions? Then do it,” he said.
Allison Minnerly, another working group member from Florida, said after the snafu that “so long as the party does not prioritize this conversation, you will see what happened today, which is that DNC resolutions committee members have many questions on the inaction and the results of the working group. It’s really clear that this issue will keep coming up at every subsequent DNC meeting until there’s a clear direction, solution, talking points.”
Now that the party has referred the resolutions to the working group, it finally has a clear, near-term objective for its meeting today.
“I actually am pleased that we will now have a very specific charge that we must accomplish in a defined period of time,” Zogby said. “We have not had a defined agenda, and it’s been difficult to get people together. Now we have to get this done, and there’s just no way we can duck it at this point.”
Like this content? Consider signing up for Blue Light News’s Playbook PM newsletter.
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.”
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.”
- Inside the DNC’s Middle East (not) working group
- Pope Leo XIV condemns war, rejects claims of divine backing
- Harris gives her clearest signal she is mounting a 2028 presidential bid
- Newly created Polymarket accounts bet big on US-Iran ceasefire in hours before Trump’s announcement
- These Republican-on-Republican disputes are keeping Congress frozen
- Why Trump’s endorsement hasn’t been a ‘close out move’ for Louisiana Senate
- Candidate security costs up in era of political violence: Research
- CDC delays COVID vaccine benefits report
- EPA proposes flexibilities for toxic coal waste
- Pentagon denies threatening Vatican during January meeting with Holy See’s diplomat
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
The Dictatorship7 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
Uncategorized1 year ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
Politics12 months agoDemocrat challenging Joni Ernst: I want to ‘tear down’ party, ‘build it back up’