Kamala Harris |
“Kamala Harris was never my first choice, but MY GOD was she a better choice than: Michael Bennet, Joe Biden, Michael Bloomberg, Pete Buttigieg, John Delaney, Tulsi Gabbard, Deval Patrick, Tom Steyer, and Marianne Williamson.”
Brianna Wu, congressional candidate, as quoted in The Nation
No. She wasn't better than all of them.
She had a cloud over a weak brand.
Harris is a strong, articulate female woman of color, a former DA, a current US Senator from the giant and wealthy state of California. She was presumably exactly the kind of candidate who could consolidate the Democratic coalition and win the White House.
Moreover, she seemed sharp in debates and could stand up to Trump and stick it back into him. She made sense: right resume, right identity, right warrior skillset.
Her campaign started strong, but fizzled.
Op-Eds writers are trying to describe what happened. One easy answer is that people losing is inevitable because there were twenty candidates and one nominee. Nineteen must lose. But why her?
1. She wasn't a billionaire. (Yes, but she is from San Francisco, where there are literally dozens of them. She knows people with money and they know her. A good campaign raises money.)
2. The DNC debates looked at polling and she hadn't caught on yet. (She was elected in the nation's largest state, so 10 or 12% of the nation's Democrat's had actually voted for her at least once, for Senator, a tremendous leg up.)
3. New Hampshire and Iowa are predominately white. (But Obama did great there, so what's the problem?)
4. She had muddled views on health care. (True. But the public is muddled, and, like her, trying to figure things out.)
5. She was presumably a progressive prosecutor and people couldn't figure out what that meant, and whether it was a good thing. (Bingo. That was her opportunity and in the end her downfall.)
Her campaign started strong, but fizzled.
Iowa in August: Strong start |
Op-Eds writers are trying to describe what happened. One easy answer is that people losing is inevitable because there were twenty candidates and one nominee. Nineteen must lose. But why her?
1. She wasn't a billionaire. (Yes, but she is from San Francisco, where there are literally dozens of them. She knows people with money and they know her. A good campaign raises money.)
2. The DNC debates looked at polling and she hadn't caught on yet. (She was elected in the nation's largest state, so 10 or 12% of the nation's Democrat's had actually voted for her at least once, for Senator, a tremendous leg up.)
3. New Hampshire and Iowa are predominately white. (But Obama did great there, so what's the problem?)
4. She had muddled views on health care. (True. But the public is muddled, and, like her, trying to figure things out.)
5. She was presumably a progressive prosecutor and people couldn't figure out what that meant, and whether it was a good thing. (Bingo. That was her opportunity and in the end her downfall.)
Harris had a brand problem. People didn't know what she stood for, except for being a prosecutor, and then she didn't explain and sell it as a positive. That was her missed opportunity. I heard her up close five different times, when she talked generally about all the other things Democrats talk about, which meant she had a muddled, un-memorable brand and got lost in the crowd.
Mush |
No position a candidate takes is meaningful or memorable if everyone agrees. "For the people" is just political blather, something every politician would say. How would any voter think to pick Harris out of a group of twenty for that?
Mush. Forgettable mush.
Her unique position was as a progressive prosecutor--combined with being black and female--and she had an opportunity--a need--to sell herself as a defender of vulnerable people and communities. You're darned right she put away predators and protected victims, and proud of it. She could have distinguished between crimes of self destruction--drug abuse--and crimes with victims. Tough but compassionate is a good brand.
A lot of people on the political left would have disliked it. She would not win every vote, but at this point she does not need every vote, just a big share, to show she is a contender.
Presumably--ideally--she also had an arguable record for having gone after rich and powerful criminals, for example predatory banks and mortgage lenders. That would have been widely popular among Democrats. That makes it not only a good brand but a popular, near universal, one. It would have invaded Elizabeth Warren's space as the scourge of banks, so Harris would have been an alternative to people who agreed with Warren but wanted someone different. Harris had an opportunity to put the focus on crime victims. She could have positioned herself as the protector of the woman living in a tough neighborhood who was being assaulted, and the mortgaged-up homeowner pushed into a hole by a burglary.
Democrats do not just identify with criminals; they identify, too, with victims of criminals. There is a liberal case to be made for law enforcement.
Democrats do not just identify with criminals; they identify, too, with victims of criminals. There is a liberal case to be made for law enforcement.
She didn't do it, and in that vacuum all there was to remember was the unsatisfactory hint that she was involved in some way with drug prosecutions. That was the cloud that hung over her what little brand identity she had.
That made her many third or fourth choice, which meant she polled poorly, which meant no money, which meant campaign chaos and dissent, which meant no campaign.
More mush |
That made her many third or fourth choice, which meant she polled poorly, which meant no money, which meant campaign chaos and dissent, which meant no campaign.
6 comments:
Sen. Harris is formidable and I predict she will continue to be in the national spotlight, and reelected to the Senate.
She may be Sen. Warren's successor....or....(see below)
Her campaign is an example of why money needs to be taken out of elections, but skin color and gender is the primary reason it struggled. A secondary reason is a bias against candidates from California. (Yes, I said it.) Coming from the West she could have taken leading positions on the environment and justice reform but, as you rightly point out, opted for a more generalist tone. Finally, by not feuding with Trump she didn't get the media coverage that would have elevated her profile so she never got in front of the pack.
This is out there, but it could be that by dropping out now, she may be positioning for VP should Sen. Biden prevail. Just sayin...
Kamala is my pick for Attorney General, but I didn't see her as Presidential. Amy K. gets my female Presidential candidate pick. She is smart, thoughtful, measured and can restrain herself in a tight situation.
When Harris attacked Joe Biden, she lost moderates, who see Joe as the Grandfather of Democrats. You can't attack grandpa OR our Grandma, Nancy Pelosi. Attacks on your elders, ain't cool.
Looks like all the "moderate," "centrist" (Eisenhower) lanes were taken by Biden and Klobuchar and Sanders and Warren were too far left (FDR) for Harris. She could have pulled a Buttigieg and gone after Biden voters or pushed left on Warren (as suggested). Her "failure" reflects the polarization within the Democratic party between the market-driven "moderate" liberal corporatists and mission-driven, green new deal, democratic socialists.
Meanwhile MSM is lamenting the loss of the entertainment value of a Harris v. Trump match up.
Andy Seles
It has been pointed out elsewhere that Kamala was mostly not her best at the debates, as attacking a fellow democratic candidate was not encouraged. She is at her best when prosecuting a real adversary, like she does in the senate. She is best one on one, and against a real opponent. She is great at individual interviews, where she shows her humor and her vivid personality and intelligence.
I agree with Peter that she missed many opportunities to set herself apart from the pack. His advice about her branding is right on.
Candidates should get advice from Peter!
I am still solidly for Warren, but am nonetheless sad to see her go.
Harris wasn’t a progressive prosecutor. Larry Krasner (Philadelphia) is. To change the system, you have to take on rogue prosecutors, cops, and unions. At best, her mixed record as prosecutor indicated he was a follower, not a leader of reform. As CA AG, her office argued that CA would lose prison labor if it had to comply with Supreme Court findings of overcrowding; it argued against releasing citizens found innocent by the innocence project. The amounts received under the bank settlement were paltry: enough for one months rent. Even if she could run away from her record, her inauthenticity showed through the debates: the “I was that girl” tee shirts, the fake laugh. Laughing about smoking pot when her office prosecuted for possessing small amounts...
But what the heck, Joe still wants her as VP. Identify can take you far...
If Harris is the VP candidate, the P candidate had better be a man. Two women running together would never have a chance to win. That leaves us with Pete and Bernie. (forget Booker) Either one is fine with me.
In case you're wondering, I'm not a Warren fan. Too much "poor me" stuff.
Post a Comment