Kamala Harris, in a twist of events, has managed to grab the 2024 Democratic presidential nomination. Despite the skepticism revolving her credibility, Harris has become the first Black and Asian-American woman form an established party to achieve this nomination. Securing over 2,350 delegate votes, she accomplished a historic, however arguably controversial, landmark. “The honor of being the possible Democratic nominee for the United States President humbles me”, stated Harris in a live broadcast, as quoted by USA Today.
The nature of her address was filled with vapid statements on dedication and love for the country. One might start to question the sincerity of her words and the true motivations behind this political campaign. The nominee is slated to formally accept her title next week. The Democratic National Convention, scheduled on Aug. 19 in Chicago, will brace for the presence of Harris.
Presenting the convention as an avenue for celebrating this ‘landmark moment’ together might seem like an attempt to pander to the public sentiment. It begins in Chicago, a city native to Harris. What’s intriguing is that the nomination happened soon after President Joe Biden’s surprising withdrawal from the presidential race on July 21. As we follow the course of events, Harris is now pitted against the former president Donald Trump.
Ahead in the race, Harris has strangely amassed a formidable troop of endorsements from big-league Democrats. Names would include Barack and Michelle Obama, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Now, with the election less than 100 days away and the tension between her and Trump intensifying, Harris is expected to announce her running mate on August 6 at a rally in Philadelphia.
A peculiar statement from Donald Trump caught the crowd’s attention: “I’ve known her for a long time, and she was only promoting Indian heritage. I didn’t even realize she was Black”, stated Trump. This leads to the curious question of identity politics’ role in Democratic nomination. According to Politico, as attractive as it is for media attention, Harris managed to raise $310 million for her campaign in July alone, which is astonishingly double the amount Trump has managed to accumulate.
Even though Harris received massive support from organizations named after specific demographics, one would question the genuine substance behind these pandering tactics. Groups with amusing names like ‘Black Women for Harris’, ‘Latinas for Harris’ and ‘White Dudes for Harris’ have added to her tally.
The Harris campaign labelled the influx of funds a historic event, probably geared more to raising campaign morale than any factual relevance. Her campaign manager, Julie Chavez Rodriguez, almost orchestrating a propaganda machine, stated: “This overwhelming wave of support shows how our Harris coalition has been mobilized, is increasing in size and is ready to put in the work to ensure Trump’s defeat this November.”.
Even though these numbers might initially sound impressive, we need to remember the controversy and distrust that surround the Harris campaign. Can we truly rely on these figures and what they represent? On one hand, we have Harris’s verbal commitment to ‘dedication and love for the country’, and on the other hand lies the reality of identity politics and the dubious interpretation of the ‘Harris coalition’.
Regardless of her claim to historical achievement, many doubts remain about Harris’s road to the nomination. The question arises about how genuine is the widespread support for her, given the particularly focused demographic groups that have surfaced to support her campaign.
While the narrative of a heavily-mobilized growing Harris coalition is spun by her campaign manager, it’s worth delving deeper to separate surface spikes from actual, sustainable support. Could the divisive nature of identity politics and endorsement from polarising figures influence the long-term success of the ‘Harris coalition’?
Despite the high tally Harris seems to have garnered, the real story here is probably about the silent majority remaining from issuing their verdict. The voices from specific demographic groups espousing an overwhelming support for Harris hardly reflect the general consensus.
The statement by her campaign manager about the ‘historic making haul’, for instance, seems more like an attempt to attract attention than to provide any real material for political discourse. Behind the grand figures she raises and the noisy support she claims to have, Harris’s campaign is ultimately a drop in the broader sea of American politics.
Many might still question whether these figures do in fact represent genuine support for Harris, or if they are merely the product of identity politics and targeted messaging. Is the ‘Harris coalition’ genuinely mobilized, growing, and ready to ‘go to work’ as touted by her campaign manager?
Between political strategy, media attention, and the reality of these numbers, the true essence of the Harris campaign remains a mystery. Could these grandiose claims be hyperbolic attempts at stirring the political pot or confident proclamations of an unstoppable wave worth the hype?
While Harris’s campaign claims to be making history and unseating former President Trump, it remains to be seen whether this reported ‘outpouring of support’ will translate into a victory at the polls. The contentious nature of the current political climate would caution against prematurely celebrating these claimed victories.
As the countdown to the election begins, the outcome will likely not only reveal the real state of support for Kamala Harris but also cast a penetrating light on the inner workings of political campaigns, identity politics and voter sentiment in American politics today.