Since Kamala Harris’s loss to Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential elections, the Democratic Party has been scrambling to find an explanation and a path forward. Media figures and political consultants have proposed a myriad of reasons for her defeat, pointing fingers at everything but the campaign strategy. The Democrats’ inability to win this election, and now, to conceptualize the reasons for their loss, is indicative of a huge shift in the party over the past decades that has resulted in the loss of key constituencies and the values which they claim to represent. Harris’ loss exemplifies the consequences of a decades-long strategy of alienating the working class in favor of corporate/elite support and a growing distrust of the government among Americans.
Upon President Joe Biden’s announcement that he would be exiting the race, the Harris campaign was given four months to define and advocate for their candidate in the public eye. During this period, the campaign committee and outside groups raised a total of over $1.65 billion through both individual and billionaire contributions. The majority of funds, roughly $654 million, were spent on advertisements which targeted swing state voters and focused on key issues like abortion and democracy. Significant sums also went toward celebrity endorsements, event production, political consultants, polling, payroll, and travel. The Harris campaign experienced an initial surge of energy, breaking fundraising records by receiving over $81 million in the first 24 hours after Biden’s withdrawal. However, this early momentum gradually dissipated in the following months, and ultimately failed to translate into tangible electoral gains.
The campaign focused on presenting Harris as the “safer option” to Trump, heavily emphasizing her record as a prosecutor and her center-right positions on polarizing issues like immigration, climate change, and transgender rights. This strategy involved distancing from progressive policies in favor of appealing to moderate and anti-Trump Republican and Independent voters. Harris notably abandoned her earlier, more progressive stances on issues such as fracking, border security, and healthcare. For one, in 2017, Harris co-sponsored Bernie Sanders’s Medicare for All bill during her senate term, but later shifted to a plan that included a private option during her vice presidential campaign in 2019. However, by 2024, her position shifted away from Medicare altogether, advocating instead to “maintain and grow the Affordable Care Act.” Similarly, Harris abandoned her 2019 support for decriminalizing border crossings and embraced what she called “the toughest border control bill in decades,” which was ultimately killed by Republicans in Congress at Trump’s behest.
Additionally, the Harris campaign steered clear of identity politics, never focusing on her race or gender and changing the subject when it was brought up. On the issue of transgender rights—which has become an increasingly large part of the Trump administration’s culture war—Harris left much to be desired. When asked whether she personally believes transgender Americans should have access to gender-affirming care, she responded, “I think we should follow the law.” This non-committal response reflects the campaign’s overall strategy of avoiding controversial issues and appealing to moderate voters, even if it meant alienating the party’s base. Harris even went as far as to campaign with Dick and Liz Cheney and stated during a CNN interview that “it would be a benefit of the American public to have a member of my Cabinet who was a Republican.” In the end, the “safer option” strategy employed by the Democrats materialized as a rather uninspiring message that failed to connect with the needs and frustrations of many Americans who have been struggling during the past four years.
While few Democrats like Bernie Sanders called out the failure of the Harris campaign, and more broadly the Democratic Party, for their failed strategy, many more seemingly took all the wrong lessons from Trump’s victory. The pundit and consultant class came out of the woodworks almost immediately after election day, blaming Harris’s loss on a variety of issues and voting groups. One of the popular sentiments being expressed is that the racism and sexism in America simply rendered her bid for the presidency impossible. MSNBC host Joy Reid argued that despite Harris’s “flawlessly run” campaign, it is just “not easy to elect a woman president, let alone a woman of color” in this country. While this critique is not entirely untrue and the United States undoubtedly faces a significant problem of racism and misogyny, the idea that Harris ran a perfect campaign and the fault is simply the bigotry of the American public is misleading. One indication that this analysis leaves out important details is the down-ballot results, which saw major milestones in diversity with the first-time election of two Black women to the Senate, the first Korean American Senator, the first Black woman in the Michigan State Supreme Court, Ohio’s first Latino Senator, North Dakota’s first female House member, and hundreds of LGBTQ+ candidates in forty different states—including the first transgender member of the House. It is likely that Harris being a Black woman from California contributed to the public’s perception of her being “too liberal or progressive” despite her decidedly centrist campaign, but it was in no way the definitive factor in her loss. This leads to the next popular myth being espoused about the reasons for the campaign’s failure.
The day after the election, Bari Weiss took to Fox News to echo the statements of other Democrats: “It turns out running on these extraordinarily niche issues like gender fluidity or defunding the police, or any number of things that people in places where I live get extremely excited about don’t actually matter—or frankly, feel profoundly out of touch—to ordinary Americans.” The criticism that the Harris campaign failed because it was too far left and “woke” is not only unfounded, but easily disproved. One look at the campaign advertisements and messaging will reveal how in so many ways she shifted right from Biden. Not only was there zero talk of “gender fluidity” or “defunding the police,” but the campaign actually leaned into the messaging that Harris is the candidate of law and order, portraying Trump as the criminal and her the tough prosecutor.
Representative Seth Moulton of Massachusetts commented that “I have two little girls, I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat I’m supposed to be afraid to say that.” Again, it can not be emphasized enough how little the Harris campaign advocated for or even mentioned transgender Americans. What they did emphasize, however, was what The New York Times called a “Wall Street-approved economic pitch” driven by “the advice of her allies and donors from Wall Street and Silicon Valley,” a contrast to Biden’s relatively populist, pro-worker stances. They did highlight her proximity to conservative border policy, even vowing to continue building Trump’s once-controversial border wall. The notion that the Harris campaign would have succeeded if only they shifted even further right is exactly the thinking that cost Democrats the election.
However, not all the explanations for Harris’s loss floating around are baseless and mistaken. A key factor that many commentators correctly identified was the campaign’s failure in differentiating Harris from Biden and his policies. Harris struggled to articulate during her short campaign how she would differ from Biden’s unpopular presidency, a problem epitomized by her response to the question presented on “The View” about what she would do differently than Biden if elected. In an incredible blunder, she responded that “there is not a thing that comes to mind in terms of—and I’ve been a part of most of the decisions that have had impact.” With Biden’s disapproval rate at 57% as of June 2024, and only a quarter of Americans rating economic conditions positively, this was not the answer Americans were looking for. It is fair to assess the election results as a manifestation of anti-incumbency public sentiment, a phenomenon that has been seen in many recent elections around the world. Fundamentally, Trump represented a rejection of the status quo to many Americans who are deeply unsatisfied and distrustful of the government, and the Harris campaign did not provide a strong enough narrative to compete.
In the current moment, the Democratic Party once again finds itself at a crossroads. With the real threat of fascism and the erosion of American democracy, they must choose how to proceed very carefully. Instead of continuously rejecting the progressive coalitions, Democrats should embrace a bold platform of economic populism that prioritizes the needs of working people. Focusing on issues such as healthcare and income inequality will resonate with voters across racial and ethnic lines. It is time to let go of the fear of being labeled “woke,” as public perception can be shifted by effectively communicating the positive impacts of these policies on the lives of ordinary Americans. The strategy of appeasing Republicans and moderates is a failed one and ultimately backfired in this election. The current political climate demands a courageous and decisive response from the Democratic Party. This is an opportunity to reclaim its position as the champion of the people and to effectively counter the rise of American fascism.
***
This article was edited by Emily Caro.
