The aftermath of the 2024 presidential election still echoes with disappointment for the Democrats due largely to Kamala Harris’s failed bid for the presidency, an outcome that Bernie Sanders believes he can accurately interpret. Sanders, renowned Vermont senator, chose the stage of his ‘Fighting Oligarchy’ tour in London to express his astute thoughts concerning Harris’s defeat to Donald Trump. The liberal Senator dismissed simplistic notions attributing Harris’s defeat to Joe Biden’s late withdrawal from the race, considered by others as a crucial factor. Sanders insists a plausibly victorious campaign mysteriously turned sour somewhere along the line.
In his assessment, Sanders berates Harris and the Democratic Party for courting the upper echelons of society instead of more actively addressing the concerns of the working class. Their choice of allies, namely billionaire friends and individuals like Liz Cheney, epitomizes the misplaced focus of their campaign. Cheney, a Republican formerly outspoken against Trump, found favor with Harris, much to Sanders’s chagrin. The frequency of Harris’s interactions with Cheney raised questions in Sanders’s mind about the message sent to the working-class community.
Interestingly, Sanders and others view the Harris campaign as a missed opportunity, with the potential of a broad-scale constituency being unutilized. Harris, for reasons unknown, could not rally public support to secure the significant voter turnout needed to nab the majority in a national election. Surprisingly, the statistics show that four million fewer voters participated than in the 2020 elections. Additionally, the mind-boggling fact that eighty-nine million registered voters refrained from voting further underlines the evident apathy of the public towards the two candidates.
Both candidates evidently failed to resonate with the overwhelming majority of the electorate. While Harris miserably fell short in communicating her policies, Trump mastered the scare tactics, managing to appeal to the fears, rational or irrational, of the electorate. This undoubtedly helped consolidate his victory. Harris’s messaging was deemed unsatisfactory and insufficient by the public despite the resultant alarm induced by Trump’s rhetoric.
Harris’s transformation from being labeled as ‘too far left’ during her first presidential run to being conventionally confined in her latter attempt fueled widespread criticism. The added burden of challenging a sitting president she previously served under and implementing policies dictated by influential donors left her navigating a narrow, bumpy path. Her decision of Vice President only added fuel to the fire, regardless of the onlookley chosen.
While she may have checked some boxes, the overarching goal of securing the presidency was unattainable for Harris. The crushing defeat under her leadership has led to the unfortunate reality of a Trump presidency, impacting everyday lives. The collective failure of the party undoubtedly lingers as a troubling reminder and a lesson that needed to be learned.
Lambasted as the worst campaign in living memory stacked against Trump, Harris’s performance exposed her as a weak and uninspiring candidate. Her inadequate leadership during her term as vice president should have been a warning indicator of her potential presidency. Despite facing the consequences of their flawed choices, the Democratic party appears to have glossed over the lessons glaringly presented to them.
Harris’s campaign lacked the gravitas expected of a presidential candidate. Her campaign was likened to daytime talk show ‘The View,’ – engaging perhaps, but undeniably frivolous. Harris’s efforts to add a touch of ‘joy’ and light-heartedness to her campaign were deemed counterproductive, leading voters to question her seriousness and competence in high-pressure situations.
Even to the voters who backed her, Harris’s campaign lacked the intensity expected of a presidential run. Rather than projecting the image of a leader fit for office, her approach was labeled ‘presidential-lite,’ arousing questions about her potential effectiveness and commitment as president, regardless of her initial appeal.
Harris’s cavalier attitude towards her campaign concerned voters, manifest in her missteps with figures like Cheney. Despite this, Harris made an effort to discuss crucial contemporary issues, an initiative that fell on deaf ears as the American public remained indifferent. Perhaps Bernie’s assessment of political affairs is not without merit given the Democrats’ dismal 25% approval rating.
The Democrats’ habit of retreating to their old guard of consultants and pollsters, despite their proven ineffectiveness, only adds to the party’s stagnation. In essence, it seems that Harris and the Democrats were working on flawed principles and outdated guidance, explaining their shocking defeat.
One might conjecture that Harris’s short run of merely 100 days contributed to her eventual defeat. In stark contrast, Trump had been on the campaign train since 2016, providing him with substantial time to develop and communicate his message, a lesson for Harris and the Democrats in Campaigning 101.
The tale of Harris’s defeat and Trump’s victory is a story of missed opportunities, poor alliances, and flawed strategies. For Harris and the Democratic Party, the 2024 Presidential Election was a wake-up call. The challenge now is to heed the lessons of this political misstep, tragically realized at the expense of a nation now living under a Trump presidency.