In an amusing twist of events, a contingent of ex-staffers for Kamala Harris has decided to establish a new grassroots movement, apparently of the belief that they possess the ‘secret sauce’ to enhance Democratic Party strategies. Anatole Jenkins, Brandon Thompson, and Jose Nunez have kicked off Campaign Contrasts, attempting to put a modern spin on Democratic operations. This course of action emerged after Kamala Harris, in what was almost predictable, succumbed to defeat in the 2024 election against President-elect Donald Trump. The trio appears convinced that altering the status quo is an essential move to pave the way for supposedly brighter Democratic victories in 2025 and the future.
The three men had earlier embarked on a fool’s errand as part of Harris’s presidential campaign team in 2019. With an overconfident head start that ultimately led them to a devastating defeat against Trump during Harris’s second presidential race, they remain under the delusion that their blueprint could alter the course of future elections for the Democrats. Their strategy revolves around the notion that the 2024 election should be a learning moment where Democrats dissect their failures, an interesting perspective considering they themselves were part of those failures.
Claiming 15 years of political and campaign experience, this trio has a history dotted with their involvement in highly criticized campaigns. Their résumés allegedly boast working for the Biden-Harris administration and the presidential campaigns of Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama, all of which displayed their ideological conformity. In a futile attempt to paint a vibrant picture of their capabilities, they note their roles as major organizers for statewide parties, campaigns, and organizations.
Despite their history, the Campaign Contrasts group seems to have found few takers as their partnerships seem limited to like-minded institutions such as the Democratic National Committee (DNC), League of Conservation Voters, and Californians for Choice, a pro-choice group headed by Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis. It’s interesting to see them opting to align themselves with groups that share a similar ideological slant, raising questions about their capacity to adapt to differing viewpoints.
The team believes the ailing Democratic Party requires a makeover, putting forward their vision of digital-first strategies, making early investments, and nurturing talent that could keep pace with the evolving times. Unironically, this sounds like an echo of the same strategies that led to the Democrats’ defeat in the 2024 presidential election. Their claims highlight the shallow understanding underlying their propositions, which, if implemented, are likely to yield similar results for their party.
They question the existing strategy followed by many institutions that initiate their organizing endeavors closer to the elections. They naively think this approach leads to failures, downplaying other potential reasons such as unappealing candidates or detrimental policy proposals that might have led to the downfall.
The trio calls for the abandonment of traditional paid canvassing, replacing it with organized efforts that should be pivotal. However, they seem to neglect the ground reality emphasizing that it is the implementation of flawed policies and unpopular decisions that yield undesirable results, and not necessarily the process or method by which these policies are propagated.
These gentlemen also seem to overlook the importance of early funding for organizing programs. Their claim that lack of initial investment makes it difficult for a successful campaign to hire and train staff indicates their narrow vision. They miss the broader perspective—policy matters more than personnel, and the right decisions drive success, not the other way around.
They argue that the Democratic Party needs to accept the fact that ‘everyone is online’, therefore campaign strategies should mirror a digital-first approach. While this seems like a euphemism for pushing their party’s agenda through social media, the failure of such an approach in 2024 suggests a deeper issue—maybe their policy proposals aren’t as widely accepted as they would like to believe.
When asked about the diminishing appeal of identity politics, they defended it by suggesting abandoning this approach could end up alienating Black and Brown voters. This response betrays a certain misplaced arrogance and a belief in outmoded practices. They appear unwilling to navigate away from identity politics—an approach that seems to be losing traction even among the voters they aim to please.
Despite their party’s setbacks, the Campaign Contrasts team remains resolute in fighting for the same values that seemed to have done more harm than good. They reassert their commitment to the Democratic Party and the ‘community’ they cater to, which seems like an empty promise made in the face of their beleaguered party.
In an amusing forecast, they anticipate that the Republicans’ bare majority in the House of Representatives provides a launching pad for Democrats to regain control of the House in two years. This seems like more of an attempt to boost their morale than a realistic prediction, given the recent trajectory of the political climate in the country.
They uphold the belief that the 2024 election wasn’t a significant repudiation of the Democratic Party. An interesting interpretation indeed, considering that it was their representative, Kamala Harris, who faced defeat. Yet, they feed into the belief that voters turned out in record numbers for Democrats, a claim which doesn’t seem to align with the results of the last presidential elections.
The Campaign Contrasts team, despite their bold proclamations and so-called ‘new generation’ strategy, seems trapped in the past. Their claims, coupled with the history of setbacks of the campaigns they’ve been associated with, cast doubts on their ability to inspire change within the Democratic Party.
While this ‘new grassroots agency’ formed by ex-Kamala Harris staffers may perceive itself as the medicine urgently needed by the Democratic Party, a realistic analysis tells a different story. Their attempts, possessing an uncanny resemblance to failed past strategies, invite skepticism rather than hope for a more successful future for their party.