The Humbling Downfall of Kamala Harris: An Inevitable Failure

During a discussion on ‘The View’ about the initial passages from Kamala Harris’ recently publicized book ‘107 Days,’ participants unanimously agreed that excessive pride within Democrat ranks and poor strategic choices were the fundamental contributors to the failure of her campaign. It was also insinuated that the pervasive hubris among Democrats played its part in this failure.

Despite hauling in over a billion dollars in campaign funds and gaining significant early support from Democratic delegates, not to mention her unstinting effort on the campaign circuits, the achievement seemed short-lived. The prevailing view on the panel questioned the immense paradox of how one who had overwhelmingly much going for them could find themselves in the position of failure. There was a sense that she had been positioned in a perilous position, devoid of the possibility of success from the start.

A theme that emerged was that there seemed to be no master plan to undermine Harris. However, it was noted that in the world of politics, the first in command hardly welcomes the idea of ceding the spotlight to the second in command. This fundamental rule of vice presidentials seemed to be a factor in her predicament.

Often, Harris’ commendable efforts went unnoticed or unappreciated. The panel suggested that when negative comments were launched at her, there appeared to be no counter movement to overshadow, counteract, or discredit these negative insinuations. This was indicative of a more considerable issue at hand: The presence of unforeseen circumstances which Biden could not free himself from and which Harris, unfortunately, found herself unable to disassociate from.

The panel further noted the various controversies swirling around Trump that the Democrats had hoped to leverage for a sure victory. The demise of the economy, significant campaign funds support for Trump, and claims of his role in the infamous January 6 riot were factors largely presumed to guarantee a Democratic win. This was a sentiment that, while popular, sadly didn’t pan out.

Despite all the high expectations placed on the Democrats given the missteps attributed to Trump, the tables turned. The unanticipated reality of the situation left the panelists and many others gobsmacked. The narrative of ‘how can he win after so many blunders?’ was questioned and left many dumbfounded as, against all odds, he won.

A panelist drew attention to Harris’ characterization of the decision to have Joe Biden, Jill Biden, and their allies as the primary decision-makers with regards to Biden’s consideration of a second term as imprudent. The panelist implicitly suggested that Biden’s declining cognitive and physical ability should have been taken into account.

Given the heavy demands of the presidency, it was suggested that careful selection of the most able and competent individual was paramount. Following this line of thought, it was argued that the weight of these decisions should’ve been borne by those around the duo and not restricted to a select few. This issue was reportedly unknown to the panelist until Harris voiced it, calling the dynamics between the president and vice president’s teams into question.

Harris’ critique of Biden’s team, which seemed to undermine her growing popularity, sparked another panelist to share thier thoughts. To them, Biden’s team seemed focused on their internal hierarchy rather than working for the betterment of the nation and the party.

Pointedly, a fellow panelist stated the predicament quite succinctly: ‘It’s everyone’s fault.’ Such an arbitrary blaming exhibited a deflection from the actual problems that led to the failed campaign, showing the cyclical nature of the blame game.

There often exists an irresistible urge to retrospectively dissect past failings, and this was evident in the panel discussion. Statements like ‘we ought to have initiated a better campaign’ were widespread. This provided a clear view on the lack of acceptance of reality and the continual need to revisit the past.

Despite attempting to sidestep past failures, there’s a lingering presence of the proverbial ‘elephant in the room.’ The harsh reality is the societal resistance towards electing a female president. This point was concisely brought up by one panelist during the discussion.

The panelist’s declaration of the reluctance of the American society in electing a female leader drove home a bitter truth. The underlying sentiment highlighted societal biases against women candidates for leadership and brought to the surface the latent discriminatory instincts of a society.

Adding on to the previous statement, another panelist solemnly noted: ‘I’d like to add, a Black woman.’ This was a bitter testament of the racial biases that further complicated the prospects of a presidential run for a woman of color, such as Kamala Harris.