Kamala Harris’ staggering defeat in the 2024 presidential elections remains a hard pill for Democrats to swallow. Senator Bernie Sanders attributes this humiliating loss to Harris herself and her advisors, rather than blaming it on the untimely exit of then-president Joe Biden from the race. From his perspective, Sanders believes that the campaign was tragically mishandled.
Sanders’ critique over Harris’s campaign strategy came in light during his ‘Fighting Oligarchy’ tour in a BBC Radio 4 interview from London. He argues that instead of addressing the core needs of the American working class, Harris and her associates were busier rubbing shoulders with billionaires, and spending time with naysayers of Donald Trump like Liz Cheney.
According to Sanders, the common working-class Americans were brushed aside while Harris socialized with the elite. He provocatively questioned, ‘Kamala spent more time with Liz Cheney almost than with anybody else. What is that message out to working-class people?’
Public reactions to Sanders’ remarks were swift and varied. Ronnie Goodson agreed to an extent, saying that Harris’s campaign lacked the depth necessary to win national elections. He pointed out that she failed to resonate with a broad-based constituency, thus failing to gather the needed votes.
Carl Hayman raised doubts over Sanders’ criticism, saying Harris’s approach could be deemed ineffective, yet he also questioned Sanders’ decision to ‘fight oligarchy’ in London where his influence might be minimal. In Hayman’s view, the constant interaction between Harris and Liz Cheney was dubious considering he seldom saw them together apart from in Wisconsin.
Another comment came from Dan Rothwell who criticized both Harris and Sanders. He pointed out that Sanders too lost in the primaries despite following the strategies he accused Harris of ignoring. Rothwell called attention to the slim margin by which Harris lost, remarking how four million fewer voters participated compared to 2020. He attributed the shocking political decision to willful ignorance and apathy.
A user named ‘That Guy’ put forth his views, stating that Harris’s messaging might have lacked power, but Trump managed to exploit the fears of the less informed. This became the secret to his victory, according to him.
Transplant West critiqued Harris being pulled in too many directions. Harris’s attempts to appeal to different groups and donors during her campaigning made her first campaign seem far-left leaning. This, coupled with poor Vice Presidential picks, led to many obstacles, ultimately causing her downfall and ushering in Trump’s presidency.
Sheikh Yerbouti bluntly stated that Democrats only had themselves to blame for the 2024 elections’ outcome. Similarly, Sherman Berman expressed his disappointment with Democrats’ campaign, labeling it the worst in living history against Trump.
From across the aisle, Tom Sutpen confessed his effort to back Harris, urging her to connect with the working class’ needs. But he claimed that politicians, both Democrat and Republican, are more beholden to their donor class than the people, marking a clear disconnect.
Chad M. voiced his disagreement with Sanders and suggested that his comments might not be helpful. He pointed out that Sanders is not a Democrat and queried why he should be the Democratic candidate. This fueled tension among the ‘Bernie Bros’, who were still upset that DNC didn’t back Sanders in the 2016 primaries.
B A provided a critique of Harris’s campaign, likening it more to a daytime talk show than a professional political campaign. If her campaign had been taken more seriously, they hypothesized she might have been a good president. They admired female political leaders internationally, known for their inherent dignity and confidence, unlike Harris.
F. N. agreed that associating with Cheney was a failing move for Harris, however, added that Americans were simply indifferent to everything else she talked about. On the other hand, Tommy Tomtom lamented that establishment Democrats are committed to their unsuccessful strategies, evidenced by their low approval rating.
Amid different viewpoints, J.K. Doyle offered another perspective. He opined that Harris’s campaign was too short-lived compared to Trump’s extended campaign since 2015, which might have been a significant factor contributing to her defeat.
In essence, many people offered various reasons for Harris’s failure in the 2024 elections, from unsound strategy, lack of broad support, to her engagement with questionable company. Regardless of the reasons, it’s clear that Harris’s campaign was a disaster, reflecting negatively on her and the Democratic party as a whole.