The recent electoral defeat serves to underline one point: Joe Biden’s failure, not Kamala Harris’s. This narrative is what the supporters of Ms. Harris want the public to believe. Trump, too, in the whirl of his historic victory dance, was quick to underscore the shortcomings of the previous administration, one notably blemished by an ailing economy and skyrocketing immigration figures. Few punches were thrown at Harris, save for some remarks about her calamitous border policy and questionable intelligence.
Harris, despite her steadfast efforts, could not break free from the chains of her association with the unpopular Biden regime. Aligned too closely with the outgoing president and his flawed policies, Harris was suffocated by the swirl of negativity that surrounded her former superior. Her own presidential campaign was notably brief, giving her barely over a hundred days between her designation as the Democratic nominee and the election day.
Trump, a familiar face through his presidency, business endeavors, and reality TV stint, began his re-election bid two years prior. Naturally, the public knew more about Trump, as 18-year-old Howard University biology student Alexander Millian indicates: ‘I definitely understand Trump more than Harris, simply because of Trump’s longer tenure in the public eye. And indeed, Biden was under more scrutiny during his four-year Presidential term than his VP.’
Harris’s roadblock lay in her failure to separate her identity from the deeply unpopular policies of the Biden administration. She was vice-president; therefore, she was associated with every misstep, every failed project, despite her never assuming the presidential office herself. There was no way to decouple her image from Biden’s, inevitably twisting the public view of her into a reflection of his policy mishaps.
A simpler explanation for Harris’s defeat is offered by a segment of her supporters. They argue that she faced excessive opposition due to her race and gender. While gender and ethnicity may have been factors in the election, Millian observes, it’s still a fresh concept for many voters to place their trust in a woman for America’s leadership, especially one with a non-conventional background.
When challenged about how her governance would differ from Biden’s, Harris offered only a weak retort: ‘Of course, we are different individuals’. She lost a significant opportunity to disassociate herself from Biden, and could not propose any ideas of her own. Asked for a commentary about what she would have managed differently, Harris came up with nothing, opting instead to emphasize that she participated in most decision-making processes.
Yet, beneath this, there could be another reason why voters may feel distanced from Harris; namely, her strategic avoidance of the media. Despite launching her presidential campaign relatively late, her media engagement campaign commenced even later. Harris elected to avoid the media, employing stage-managed moments under her campaign’s control to escape probing questions, sidestepping public scrutiny, limiting opportunities for error, but also obstructing possibilities to sell herself to the electorate.
Interestingly, Harris chose to be elusive about her policy stance, focusing instead on sharing anecdotes about her past. This was perhaps a calculated move aimed at young people, women, and minority ethnic groups. However, she failed to tap into a wider electorate, a fact underscored by a pro-Trump broadcaster, who consistently highlighted the stark contrast in the number of interviews or questions the two candidates addressed.
Consequently, Trump, ever observant, seized upon Harris’s reticent approach, criticizing it as an indicator of a lack of fitness for office. After the contest, Ms. Harris is expected to retreat for a while to regroup and find a new direction for her political journey. The real crunch came in the final weeks of the campaign when Harris belatedly attempted a strategy shift to increase her visibility. However, it was too late; her invisibility to a broad spectrum of voters was already a tipping point.
Adding to the list of strategic errors, Harris chose Tim Walz, Minnesota Governor, as her running mate, overlooking a potentially more suitable candidate. Both were contenders due to their prowess in the key battleground of the Midwest. The decision seemed flawed after the election; losing a crucial fight in the Midwest indicated questionable judgment on her part.
The alternative candidate, who was overlooked, demonstrated a successful track record with appealing to swing states through a narrative of moderate governance and authentic connection with voters. Lindy Li, a member of the DNC National Finance Committee, expressed that the alternative choice could have led to a different electoral outcome, underlining the resonance of ‘what ifs’ post-election.
The tarnishing of Harris as an untrustworthy contender by Trump succeeded. A seemingly petty quarrel unfolded over whether she had been an employee of a fast-food chain—an odd yet noteworthy controversy. The absence of solid evidence from Harris turned this trivial issue into a major ordeal, masterfully escalated by the Republicans, and it invariably lowered public perception of her.
Another blow to Harris’s credibility was the accusation of plagiarism related to sections of a crime book she allegedly copied. The Harris team labeled this controversy as the handiwork of ‘Right-wing operatives’, yet it was an undeniable bruise to her integrity. It marked another point in Trump’s successful campaign to tarnish her as an unreliable candidate, casting doubt on her credibility.