Moving into the second week of what can only be described as ‘Trump II: The Journey to Strong Leadership,’ the focus shifts to Project 2025, something that was on Trump’s agenda all along. The former president has been flooding the public consciousness with hard-hitting actions, tariff warnings, and other notable gestures. Amidst all of this, it seems prudent to cast a glance back at the calamitous charade that unfolded during the 2024 elections – an event that offers lessons on how Democrats could end up snatching the limelight away in the future.
A faint echo of Barack Obama’s successful campaign strategies can be detected in recent times. However, in my opinion, presidential campaigns have become overly cautious about letting candidates show their true colors. Kamala Harris managed to deliver a commendable performance in her September debate against Trump, only to fade into obscurity in the weeks that followed.
Harris’s running mate, Tim Walz, made a splash on the national scene by lambasting ‘eccentric’ Republicans on cable news. He too joined Harris in becoming a somewhat forgotten figure as the campaign progressed. Much like the recent campaigns run by Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, the Harris-Walz campaign struggled with the perception of being overly cautious, particularly when it came to interacting with the media or using social media effectively.
In my view, the Democrat’s biggest misstep is not so much at the level of the candidates but rather at the level of those dictating the candidates’ actions – a group of consultants that seems adamant on isolating presidential contenders from revealing their personal facets. The Harris team’s decision to not react to certain criticisms coming from their right-wing counterparts was deemed acceptable by some.
However, another Democrat strategist argued that the campaign should have responded with more vehemence to Trump’s advertisements. ‘Fear seems to be slowing down our party,’ the strategist shared with me. ‘Aspirants of future campaigns have to instantly challenge the right-wing interpretation of their stance. They need to set the records straight in time if accusations such as prioritizing transgender surgeries for convicts over costs are thrown at them.’
The opportunity for candidates to instantaneously respond through social media platforms and control the narrative before it gets solidified has never been greater. It also enables them to step into public debates more effectively. However, what’s central to Clinton, Biden, and Harris— each with their unique skills and challenges—is a consultant culture that seems to suppress their individualities.
This trend is symptomatic of the McKinsey-fication of Democratic candidates. According to Stu Loeser, a seasoned Democratic communications strategist, crafting an election campaign’s message is more an art than science. He compared it to jazz music, stating, ‘You have to find the rhythm in what’s happening around you and interweave your tune. It’s about feeling the beat, not cold computations.’
Democrat presidential candidates are often held back by an obsession with data, fear of negative outcomes, and a desire to control every possible moment. This culture of excessive caution ends up producing candidates who may not have many negative aspects but struggle to appear genuine to voters.