REFLECTION ON WHERE IT ALL WENT WRONG FOR KAMALA HARRIS
By Chloé Beaufoy
With the dust finally settling after the recent U.S. election and Kamala Harris’s surprising defeat, opinions are swirling faster than a political rumour mill. Journalists and the general public are abuzz with mixed feelings about why Kamala faltered and how Trump managed to pull off a victory. The internet is aflame with theories and speculations about what this all means for the future of America and indeed, the world. Here at RW Magazine, we are keen to explore how Kamala got it wrong and what her loss signifies for women everywhere. We explore opinions from the writings of Afua Hirsch and Andrew Prokop.
Where Did It All Go Wrong for Kamala Harris?
In the wake of Kamala Harris’s electoral defeat, commentators have been dissecting the reasons behind her loss and its implications for women in politics. Afua Hirsch, writing for Grazia, explores the multifaceted challenges Harris faced during her campaign.
One prevailing narrative suggests that Harris was tainted by her association with the Biden administration, particularly concerning inflation and rising living costs. Critics argue that she failed to establish a distinct policy identity, focusing too heavily on attacking her opponent instead of presenting a positive vision for the future.
A damaging claim circulated by her opponents alleged that Harris was responsible for the incarceration of over 1,000 people, many of them Black men, for marijuana offenses during her tenure as a prosecutor. Although this claim was misleading, it negatively impacted her support among Black voters. CNN exit polls indicated that while Harris secured 86% of the Black vote, this was lower than Biden’s 92% four years prior.
Harris also endured attacks that were both misogynistic and absurd she was criticized for not being “fertile enough,” “miserable enough,” or even “bad enough at dancing.” Such critiques resonate with many Black women who often feel that their very existence is scrutinized and disparaged.
Her journey to becoming the Democratic candidate underscores the
persistent barriers women face in politics. Harris’s opportunity arose only after Biden dropped out mid-race, echoing sentiments from 2019 when America was deemed not ready for a female candidate. This mirrors historical challenges faced by figures like Britain’s first female leader, Margaret Thatcher.
Hirsch points out that Harris’s defeat reflects broader issues within democracy, including obscene income inequality, existential climate crises, and elected officials who ignore public protests against conflicts like the war on Gaza. She emphasizes that Harris endured a smear campaign steeped in misogyny and racism, she was simultaneously accused of not being “Black enough” and being “too Black,” the latter leading some to dismiss her as merely a “diversity hire.”
Many who should have been her strongest supporters approached her campaign with a heavy heart, skeptical due to previous disappointments. Hirsch recalls the optimism during Obama’s 2008 victory and the subsequent realization that symbolic wins do not necessarily translate into systemic change.
Despite these challenges, there was a hope that Harris’s victory would symbolize progress. A Black woman as president of the United States would carry immense historic significance. Hirsch suggests that perhaps Harris’s loss removes the danger of complacency, prompting a deeper examination of what true representation and power mean.
The Debate Over Why Harris Lost Is in Full Swing
Andrew Prokop, writing for Vox, explored the multifaceted debate surrounding Harris’s defeat. Key questions include whether she was a weak candidate, if Biden’s unpopularity played a role, Trump’s unexpected strength, or if global trends influenced the outcome.
Critics argue that Harris lacked appeal to swing voters due to her cautious and defensive campaign strategy. Her avoidance of high- profile interviews, reliance on talking points, and past positions that seemed politically untenable were seen as liabilities. Attack ads capitalized on these weaknesses, portraying her as out of touch with mainstream America.
Gender and race also played significant roles. The Trump campaign often depicted Harris in a manner intended to undermine her credibility, with ads showing her laughing or dancing in vibrant attire to make her appear lightweight. Preliminary data suggested that the swing against her was most pronounced among men, raising questions about underlying sexism.
Some suggest that Harris is receiving undue blame, noting that Biden’s initial attempt to run for re-election limited her time and options. The unpopularity of the Biden administration, particularly regarding inflation and immigration, may have hampered her campaign. Research indicated that swing voter were most swayed by concerns over high inflation and illegal border crossing under the Biden-Harris administration.
There is also a theory that the Democratic Party may have shifted too far left, alienating moderate voters. Policies perceived as “woke” or too progressive on crime, education, and transgender rights might have contributed to public frustration. However, some counter that Democratic Senate candidates in swing states performed well, suggesting that the issue might have been more about the top of the ticket than the party’s overall positioning.
Global trends could also be a factor. Incumbent parties in developed countries have faced losses in the post-pandemic years, possibly due to widespread dissatisfaction exacerbated by inflation and economic challenges.
Trump’s unusual strength as a candidate cannot be overlooked. His persona as a savvy businessman resonated with voters dissatisfied with the current administration’s handling of the economy and immigration. Despite controversies and legal troubles, Trump managed to outperform expectations, suggesting that he was particularly well-positioned to capitalize on the electorate’s frustrations.
What It Means for Women
The analyses highlight the complex interplay of factors contributing to Harris’s defeat, many of which intersect with the challenges women, and particularly women of colour face in politics. Persistent sexism and racism create additional hurdles that male candidates often do not encounter.
Harris’s experience underscores the need for a deeper conversation about representation and the structural barriers that hinder women in leadership roles. Her defeat may serve as a catalyst for addressing these issues more aggressively, encouraging supporters to move beyond symbolic victories and push for substantive change.
The discussions also reflect a broader malaise with democratic institutions, emphasizing that the fight for equality and effective governance continues. Harris’s journey, while not culminating in victory, brings to light the ongoing struggle for women in politics and the importance of challenging the status quo to create a more inclusive and equitable society.
