Democrats continue to grapple with the aftermath of Kamala Harris’s crushing defeat in the 2024 presidential election. In search for reasons behind her monumental failure against Donald Trump, Senator Bernie Sanders weighed in with some enlightening observations. Speaking from his ‘Fighting Oligarchy’ tour in London, Sanders openly criticized the misguided strategies of Harris and the Democratic Party.
Sanders believes the lack of focus on the working class in Harris’s campaign might have played a pivotal role in her downfall, and rightly so. Instead of voicing the common man’s concerns, the Harris campaign chose to rub shoulders with influential billionaires and anti-Trump Republicans, such as Liz Cheney. This strategy, according to Sanders, was a severe misstep that had potential voters detached and disinterested.
The Vermont Senator pointed out that Harris ‘spent more time with Liz Cheney almost than with anybody else.’ He questioned the message sent out to the working-class voters through this bizarre camaraderie. The ignored majority, rightfully upset, didn’t see any reason to support a campaign more interested in making allies with Republicans than in taking care of their needs.
The glaring incapability of the Harris campaign to have a sizable, broad-based constituency was also a fatal flaw. Unlike other candidates who managed to amass a respectable voter support, Harris could not generate the necessary traction to secure her position. Consequently, she suffered, failing to bring in the votes required for a national win, falling four million short of the 2020 turnout figures.
In an election marked with substantial abstention, an astonishing eighty-nine million registered voters chose not to participate. The indecisiveness reflected the lack of faith people had in both the candidates. However, Donald Trump managed to outperform Harris, successfully tapping into voters’ fear and insecurities.
Harris’s underwhelming performance as Vice President, coupled with her failure to anchor her campaign with strong, popular policies, significantly contributed to her quick decline. Her swing from extreme left to mainstream politics was not perceived well, making her appear lost and confused in her political narrative and leading the electorate to question her credibility.
Besides, her struggle with big donors and the limitations they posed on her policy landscape, further hampered her bid. The vetting hurdles posed in choosing a promising VP added only to confusion and inefficiencies, casting a longer shadow on her already tumultuous campaign. No matter who she decided on, it seemed like the choice brought more hindrances than help.
The overall mess associated with Harris’s campaign sadly mirrored a cheaply produced television talk show rather than a serious and professional campaign. In a desperate attempt to appeal to voters, her activities were less about policy discussion and more about aimless showmanship. Unsurprisingly, this approach backfired, turning off many potential voters.
From early indicators, Harris, as a Vice President, gave signs of not being a strong contender for the Presidential position. Despite these glaring signs, the Democrats chose to run the weakest campaign in recent history against Trump. Not only did she prove these fears right but also made it clear that the Democrats had learned little from previous election defeats.
Kamala Harris’s campaign was marked by several missteps, including her unnecessary association with controversial figures like Liz Cheney. Regardless of whether or not these alliances had any bearing on her policies, the overall impression of her campaign was of incompetence and frivolity, hardly a representation of a serious presidential run.
Even as Senator Bernie Sanders put forth concrete criticism against Harris’s campaign strategies, she continued to follow a path leading to her inevitable downfall. The Democratic establishment, continuing to rely on outmoded political advice from the same consultants and pollsters responsible for their failures, have clung to their dismal 25% approval rate.
Perhaps a contributing factor to this loss can be attributed to Harris’s fleeting 100-day run; a stark contrast to Trump’s persistent attempt since 2015. The lack of dedication and seriousness was evident in Harris’s campaign, which indeed must have played a significant role in carving the outcome of the election.
All in all, the Democrats’ decisions, particularly the choice of Kamala Harris as their presidential candidate, have left them facing the dire consequences. Harris not only failed in projecting herself as a viable candidate but she also contributed to the mounting challenges now faced by the Democrats, which include carrying the burden of another Trump presidency.