Kamala Harris’ 2024 presidential election loss continues to puzzle Democrats—an enigma that Senator Bernie Sanders believes he can unravel. On his ‘Fighting Oligarchy’ tour in London, Sanders shared his views, decisively rejecting the popular narrative that Joe Biden’s late retreat from the race caused Harris’ defeat. Sanders asserted that the defeat lay in the campaign decisions, terming it ‘a campaign that indubitably should have been victorious’.
Expounding his arguments, Sanders criticized Harris, not for failing to capitalize on Biden’s exit, but for neglecting the concerns of the working-class demographic. In his view, Harris and the Democratic establishment focused too much on rubbing shoulders with billionaires and Republican figures, such as Liz Cheney, known for their disapproval of Trump.
‘Why was Kamala spending more time with Liz Cheney rather than interacting directly with the people?’ Sanders questioned. He pointed out a deep-rooted flaw in Harris’ campaign strategy, which should have centered around polices appealing to a broad-based constituency but instead failed to resonate with enough voters.
The 2024 election saw a significant drop in voter turnout, with four million fewer people casting their vote compared to 2020. A staggering eighty-nine million registered voters refrained from voting—a figure higher than the total votes received by either candidate. It seemed that Harris’s messaging failed to motivate these potential voters, while Trump efficiently rallied his base.
The contrast between Harris’s first and last presidential run was stark. Initially deemed as a far-left contender, Harris found herself confined by conventional political boundaries during her final run. Boxing herself in was a problematic move as she was up against an incumbent president she once served.
Her campaign was pressured by prominent donors pulling the strings on policy, with her choice of Vice President adding to the campaign’s strain. Although her campaign achieved isolated victories, it was unable to secure the larger win. Consequently, we are now under a Trump presidency.
Criticisms of the Democrats’ moves in this election resonate with the belief that they orchestrated the ‘single worst campaign in recent history against Trump’. Harris, who exhibited clear signals that she was an untenable candidate during her time as VP, went on to demonstrate that in the presidential race.
As it stands, the Democratic party seems to have gleaned little from their loss in the election. One significant critique revolved around the execution of Harris’s campaign, which came across as less of a serious political outreach and more akin to a daytime television talk show.
Reducing the instances of spectacle and theatrics might have injected the gravitas Harris’s campaign needed. But even if a voter endorsed her as a promising contender, the campaign’s overall presentation was uninspiring, suggesting a seeming lack of preparedness for the presidency.
Missteps like associating too closely with figures like Cheney undermined the campaign. But even as Harris touched upon a plethora of issues, it had little effect on the American electorate. Bernie’s commentary aligns with the general consensus: the Democratic establishment’s reliance on outmoded consultants and pollsters contributed to their lackluster approval ratings.
Kamala’s limited campaign duration also compounded her defeat. Her campaign ran for a mere 100 days compared to Trump’s perpetual electioneering that started back in 2015. This discrepancy may have highlighted her campaign’s relative inexperience and lack of readiness, compared to Trump’s seasoned run.
Furthermore, Harris’s fluctuating political positioning may have discouraged her would-be supporters. Initially marked as a far-left advocate, Harris’s later adherence to convention might have caused doubts about her political stability among her supporters, leading to a dearth of voter confidence.
The strain induced by her VP selections further hampered Harris’s campaign. Combined with other failures, these only added to the overall drag on her campaign’s performance. This mismanagement highlighted the attempted, but insufficiently successful, orchestration of the campaign on multiple fronts.
Despite isolated successes, Harris’s campaign missed the mark overall. The failure to secure widespread public confidence ultimately led to her defeat in the 2024 presidential race, placing us under a Trump administration once again— a telling indication of an election fumbled.
Perhaps it was not solely the messaging but also the lack of a winning strategy that caused Harris’s downfall. Drawing from this, the Democratic Party may need to rethink its strategies, particularly its reliance on the same old band of campaign consultants and pollsters that resulted in unprecedented defeat.
The aftermath of Harris’s defeat and the consequent Trump presidency will undeniably be profound. However, should the Democrats learn from their errors and rejuvenate their approach to campaign strategy, they might still have a chance to reclaim their position in future elections.