How the incompetence of the Democratic Party, Kamala Harris and her campaign, cost her the election.
By: Yannik Kum
He is a political science and history student at the Goethe University in Frankfurt, Germany. He can be reached at Yannik.kum@gmail.com.
Donald Trump won the 2024 U.S. presidential election and will be the 47th President of the United States. The Republicans won all seven U.S. swing states, the electoral college and the popular vote - a disaster for the Democratic Party. This begs the question; what impetus drove the American voters to opt for Trump?
While the ways of diagnosing this situation are endless, one highly possible cause of this outcome is incompetence. The rampant incompetence in Harris’ campaign and the Democratic Party cost them the election. The Democrats have not lost the popular vote since George W. Bush’s 9/11 campaign in 2004, 20 years ago. In the 2024 presidential campaign, Donald Trump won 312 votes in the Electoral College and 50.4% of all the votes. The Harris campaign did exceptionally poorly in the election. Most polls before the election fostered the misleading narrative that Harris was likely to win. For instance, FiveThirtyEight compiled multiple surveys in a meta-analysis leading up to the election, showing that from Biden’s withdrawal on July 27th, 2024, and Kamala Harris’s announcement as the new Democratic nominee on August 5th, she maintained a 3.2% lead over Trump at the end of August. As Kamala Harris disclosed more details about her policies in the lead-up to the election, her favourability declined. By the end of September, she held a 2.8% lead over Trump in the polls, which had narrowed to just 1.2% by the end of October. This can be attributed to several factors, including Bill Clinton's controversial statement during a rally in Michigan, a state with a significant Muslim minority, where he remarked that Israel is “forced to kill civilians in Gaza” or Harris's PR misstep in aligning with Republican Liz Chaney.
The Harris campaign worked with a more diverse team than the Biden campaign. While this was a welcome change, she retained Jennifer O'Malley Dillon as her campaign chairwoman, the former campaign manager of Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential campaign. She failed to distinguish her politics from the highly unpopular President Joe Biden, who holds a 64% disapproval rating according to CNN polls. By not emphasizing the differences, she effectively conveyed that her administration would have been a continuation of his. While this feeling was looming at large, Harris confirmed this with her ABC interview on October 8th, wherein she mentioned that she couldn’t think of anything she’d have done differently than President Joe Biden during the last four years, aside from having a Republican in her Cabinet.
The Harris campaign conceded to the right-wing framing on immigration, asserting that it would take a tough stance on immigration and immigrants, even accusing Republicans and Trump of failing to "solve" the immigration "issue" by blocking the border security bill. This approach alienated her core base, which comprises mostly traditional Democrat voters, leaving many feeling disconnected from her message. When pressed by CNN journalist Anderson Cooper in her Town Hall meeting on the bill's $650 million allocation for continued border wall construction, Harris responded, "I'm not afraid of a good idea, where they occur". During her speech at the Democratic National Convention, Harris stated, “As commander in chief I will ensure America always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world.” This strikingly uncommon phrasing for a Democratic presidential nominee notably echoes the rhetoric often used by Donald Trump when emphasizing the strength of the U.S. military.
The Democrats should not abandon their role as a counterbalance to the Republicans. Instead of shifting further to the right, they should provide a genuine alternative, not merely a repackaged version of Republican policies and use counter-messaging for issues that are not difficult to countermeasure. For example; Republicans have repeatedly claimed that migrants commit crimes at high rates, not true. Numerous studies conducted by researchers and policy institutes indicate that immigrants are not more likely to engage in criminal activity than individuals born in the United States. Migrants are responsible for smuggling drugs and fentanyl across the border, not true. Research shows that illicit fentanyl is predominantly transported into the United States by American citizens, typically through established legal ports of entry. Exploit the welfare system, is not true. Undocumented immigrants, including those with DACA status, are generally excluded from accessing most federal public assistance programs, including those that are means-tested. Another claim made by Vice President-elect JD Vance engages in bizarre behaviours, like eating cats and dogs in Springfield, Ohio, which was also found to be incorrect. The Springfield police have denied the claims brought forward by JD Vance and Donald Trump. Republicans have also promoted the idea that Democrats support "after-birth abortions," misrepresenting and stigmatizing a legitimate medical procedure. Unfortunately, Democrats have not mounted effective countermeasures, allowing misinformation, conspiracy theories, and false claims to spread unchecked, fuelling public uncertainty and fear. Rather than providing real solutions to these so-called "issues," Republicans leverage these fears, blaming migrants or transgender individuals as scapegoats for the public’s anxieties, as Shawn Rosenberg puts it “Right-wing populism provides the lost, lonely, alienated and frightened souls of democracy with an alternative vision and practice that is readily comprehensible, morally sensible and personally satisfying” (p.22).
The direction of the Harris campaign was heavily tilted towards the suburbs and middle-class Americans, where she had a six-point lead over Trump as late as the 11th of October following Reuters/Ipsos polling. This suburban focus can also be seen in her policy prescriptions. It cost her the election. In a time where Americans experience negative wage growth, record-high homelessness, over 220 billion dollars worth of medical debts, the highest rates of gun violence and mass shootings in all OECD nations and the gradual loss of bodily autonomy of women the Harris campaign empathized with the need to grow small businesses, with Harris constantly reiterating how she was from a middle-class family, how her mom was a small business owner, and how small businesses form the backbone of the American economy. Her idea of fixing the housing crisis consisted of providing first-time homebuyers with up to $25,000 to help with their down payments, which is neither compelling nor consistent in tackling the real issue this homelessness. This approach underscores her weak policy prescriptions for the ongoing challenges the United States faces.
This shift away from the working class, which is historically the Democrats' core base, was reflected in the election results. The Harris campaign’s strategy of appealing to Republican-leaning, suburban undecided voters proved ineffective and ultimately backfired. The Democratic Party needs to reconnect with its roots by focusing on progressive policies that genuinely improve the material conditions of its constituents, rather than offering superficial, band-aid, suburban-focused solutions aimed primarily at middle and upper-middle-class families. This suburban approach contributed to the Harris campaign's loss of minority support. While the Black vote remained largely stable, Harris saw a 10% drop in Black support compared to Biden. Meanwhile, Hispanic voters overwhelmingly shifted toward Trump, with a 14-point increase in Hispanic turnout for him. Experts say that Trump's economic messaging, coupled with admiration for Trump’s bold and combative style, where the reason for the high turnout for Trump among Latinos. Many Latino men, like his white base, dismiss his insults, racism, and threats, believing they aren't directed at them.
Considering the numerous mistakes and faulty premises of the Harris campaign from the outset, it shouldn’t be surprising that she lost. Revolving the campaign on slogans such as “We are not going back” and anti-Trump rhetoric, rather than presenting tangible policies to improve people’s material conditions, proved ineffective and ultimately cost her the race. In opposition, the Democrats need to go back to the drawing board and carefully examine their direction for the 2028 election. They face a choice: continue shifting further to the right, risking even more disconnection from their base, marginalized groups, and working-class voters, or become a true counterbalance with progressive policies that address the real issues in the country and propose concrete solutions.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author (s). They do not reflect the views or opinions of Diplomania or its members.
Comentarios