Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign, which many Democrats had hoped would be a historic moment for the party, ultimately collapsed under the weight of several critical shortcomings. Despite being a high-profile figure as vice president and a trailblazer for women and people of color, Harris struggled to offer a compelling alternative to the status quo, failed to connect with key voting demographics, and ultimately could not win over the American electorate in a head-to-head race against Donald Trump.
Tied to Biden: A Struggle to Differentiate Herself
One of the fundamental flaws of Harris’ campaign was her inability to separate herself from President Joe Biden. As vice president, she was closely associated with an administration that had become unpopular, particularly as inflation surged and the country struggled with issues at the southern border. While Harris attempted to present herself as a leader of a “new generation,” this message never resonated with voters who saw her as too closely tied to an incumbent president whose approval ratings had hovered around 40%.
The turning point in this issue came during an appearance on The View, where Harris struggled to answer a question about how she would approach issues differently than Biden. “Not a thing that comes to mind,” she said. This moment, which was seized upon by Trump’s campaign, crystallized a central issue in her bid: voters wanted change, but Harris couldn’t effectively communicate how she would bring it.
Underperforming Among Key Voter Groups
In any presidential election, connecting with diverse voter groups is critical. Harris, as the first woman of color to run for president, had the potential to galvanize communities of color, particularly Black and Latino voters. But her campaign faltered in securing this crucial support. Exit polls revealed that while Harris still carried a significant portion of Black voters (86%-12%), this was a steep drop from Biden’s overwhelming 92%-8% margin in 2020. Likewise, Harris won Latino voters by a margin of 53%-45%, but that was well below Biden’s performance of 65%-32%.
The loss of support among these groups, especially in key battleground states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, significantly hurt Harris’ chances. These states had been vital to Democratic victories in recent elections, but Harris struggled to maintain her lead in the so-called “blue wall,” which began to show cracks as voters in urban centers like Philadelphia, Detroit, and Milwaukee backed Trump more than they had in 2020.
A Campaign Overfocused on Trump
Throughout the race, Harris tried to make the election a referendum on Donald Trump. She increasingly leaned into harsh rhetoric, calling Trump a “fascist” and warning that he was “unhinged and unstable.” The focus on Trump’s character and his divisive rhetoric may have energized her base, but it failed to convince swing voters or independents who were already familiar with his faults. By the time voters went to the polls, they already knew about Trump’s controversies, but they wanted to hear more about Harris’ plans and policies.
Pollster Frank Luntz noted that focusing too heavily on Trump was a mistake. “Voters already know everything about Trump,” Luntz said. “What they wanted to know was more about Harris—her vision for the future and how she would tackle the country’s challenges.” By focusing more on Trump’s flaws than on her own policy agenda, Harris failed to capture the imagination of voters looking for a clear, forward-looking vision.
Abortion Wasn’t the Game-Changer
One issue that Harris leaned on during the campaign was abortion rights, particularly following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. However, while Harris did win a majority of female voters by a margin of 54%-44%, this was a weaker performance compared to Biden’s 57%-42% margin in 2020. Additionally, the abortion issue did not carry the same galvanizing force that it did during the 2022 midterm elections, when Democrats outperformed expectations.
Despite her strong stance on abortion, Harris’ appeal to women did not make up for her losses in other key groups. Furthermore, Trump’s strength among male voters, who backed him 54%-44%, further contributed to Harris’ inability to win over enough of the electorate. What was supposed to be a rallying cry for Democratic voters ended up being a weaker issue than expected.
The Challenge of Harris’ Political Identity
Harris’ campaign was further undermined by her lack of a clearly defined political identity at the top of the ticket. While Biden had decades of political experience and a clear connection with working-class voters, Harris was still seen as an untested political commodity. Her campaign struggled to find its footing, and she faced tough questions about her readiness to lead. Additionally, her attempts to distance herself from some of the more progressive stances she took in the 2020 Democratic primary did little to solidify her standing with moderates or progressives alike.
Harris had also been hesitant to embrace certain policy positions that could have rallied the party’s base, such as stronger climate action or healthcare reform. This made it difficult for voters to understand where she stood on key issues. At the same time, polls showed that Trump had managed to win over a significant portion of voters who felt nostalgic for his economic leadership, even if they didn’t approve of his other policies or behavior.
A Pivotal Moment for Democrats: What Went Wrong?
The aftermath of Harris’ loss has left the Democratic Party questioning its future direction. Many are asking whether Harris was the right choice to face off against Trump, or if another candidate would have had a better shot at victory. For Democrats, this defeat marks another moment of reckoning, especially as they see Trump’s strong hold on key working-class voters and his ability to energize his base despite numerous scandals.
The loss of Harris—the second time in just a few election cycles that Democrats have fielded a female candidate only to lose to Trump—raises important questions about the party’s strategy. Should they have continued with Biden, or is it time for a new face, someone who could better tap into the political moment and respond to the concerns of everyday voters?
As the party reflects on its future, one thing is clear: Harris’ inability to win over key demographics, her failure to offer a clear and distinct vision, and her inability to separate herself from Biden’s administration were critical factors in her defeat. Moving forward, the Democratic Party must carefully consider whether it can chart a path forward with the same leadership, or whether a new direction is needed to win the presidency in future elections.