[Want even more content from FPM? Sign up for FPM+ to unlock exclusive series, virtual town-halls with our authors, and more—now for just $3.99/month. Click here to sign up.]
As Kamala Harris prepares to inflict on the American people a memoir and promotional tour late this September, to rehabilitate her reputation as a presidential candidate for another run, it’s worth reviewing the reasons why her 2024 campaign against Donald Trump was such an epic failure – and why she won’t be her party’s nominee in 2028.
Short Campaign Timeline
Harris entered the race late on July 21, 2024, leaving her with only 107 days to campaign. Her supporters would argue that this limited her ability to build a stronger campaign infrastructure, refine her messaging, and connect with voters – not that any of that would have mattered. By titling her book 107 Days, Kamala wants to hammer home the point that running the shortest campaign in modern presidential history hamstrung her; but in fact, voters recognized that she was simply incompetent, unqualified, and unlikeable.
Inability to Distance from Biden
Harris struggled to jettison the ballast of then-President Joe Biden, whose approval ratings were tanking around 40%. Remember the catastrophic moment on The View, when she couldn’t articulate anything she would have done differently from Biden? So much for selling herself as the “change candidate.”
Weak Economic Messaging
Harris failed to effectively address voter concerns about inflation and rising costs. Her inability to counter Trump’s strong polling advantage on economic issues was a significant misstep.
Underperformance with Key Demographics
Harris lost support among core Democratic constituencies, particularly Black and Latino voters. She won 86% of Black voters and 53% of Latino voters, compared to Biden’s 92% and 65% in 2020, respectively. Her campaign’s inability to address these group’s specific economic and social concerns led to reduced turnout or shifts toward Trump, especially among Latino men and in battleground states like Pennsylvania and Georgia.
As for locking in the female vote: despite being hyped as the first woman of color to be nominated for president, Harris’ vote share among women was basically the same as the share Biden got in 2020, except for a noticeable decline in support from Latinas. She also underperformed Biden among Asian American and Pacific Islander women (-4) and failed to do any better with black women than Biden did. Harris also underperformed Biden with younger voters (see below).
Overemphasis on Anti-Trump Messaging
Her campaign focused obsessively on attacking Trump’s character, legal issues, and past controversies, such as smearing him as a fascist. This strategy failed because voters already knew Trump but wanted to get a clearer picture of Harris’ vision and plans. Turns out she didn’t have any.
Strategic and Tactical Missteps
Kamala’s total lack of authenticity failed to energize undecided voters. And her campaign’s shockingly profligate spending (a problem the Freedom Center’s own Daniel Greenfield superbly covered here), such as funding celebrity concerts, was seen as wasteful and out-of-touch with voter priorities.
Failure to Address Controversial Issues
Her timid stance on kitchen-table issues like the economy, crime, and immigration, which dominated voter priorities, left voters questioning her conviction, as did her sidestepping of Republican attacks, such as those on her past support for trans rights.
Neglect of Grassroots Engagement
Unlike Biden’s 2020 campaign, which emphasized in-person voter outreach, Harris’s campaign leaned heavily on digital strategies and large-scale events. This failed to connect with older, rural, or less engaged voters, particularly in swing states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan.
Missteps in Voter Mobilization
Efforts to energize younger voters and progressive Democrats fell short, with Harris winning only 55% of voters under 30, compared to Biden’s 60% in 2020. Her campaign’s focus on issues like abortion rights did not resonate with voters as expected, particularly among men of color, and failed to inspire disillusioned younger demographics.
Running Mate
Remember during the campaign when the Democrats tried to draw male voters by marketing themselves as the party of “21st-century masculinity,” represented by such icons of manhood as Kamala’s husband Doug “First Gentleman” Imhof and running mate “Tampon Tim” Walz? Epic fail. Harris performed six points worse among men than Biden did, but that falloff was significantly more pronounced among Latino men (-12) and black men (-7).
“Super Voters” Were Older, Less Racially Diverse, and Less Urban
The Catalist “What Happened” report found that Harris lost roughly two points of support among those who turned out in 2020, and new and infrequent voters failed to materialize for Democrats as they had in previous elections. For the first time in Catalist’s dataset, both infrequent and new voters — groups that tend to be younger and more diverse than the electorate at large — fell below 50% support for a Democrat presidential candidate.
Many Biden Voters Stayed Home, and New Voters Were the Least Democratic Ever
According to Catalist, 30 million 2020 voters didn’t cast a ballot in 2024. That 30 million was also a very Democratic-leaning group, giving Biden an estimated 55.7% of the vote in 2020. Harris was unable to make up for those lost votes with new voters.
To sum up, despite raising – and spending – $1.5 billion, Kamala struggled with strategic clarity, voter connection, and the albatross of an unpopular incumbent administration.
When it comes to selecting a presidential nominee, the Democrats have painted themselves into a corner thanks to their obsession with identity politics. In the last election, their strategists thought Kamala Harris might fill the bill, but now they know going with her again in 2028 means certain defeat. They can’t retreat from backing a woman of color and go back to a straight white male like Gavin Newsom or JB Pritzker without repudiating everything they stand for: anti-white racism, diversity/equity/inclusion, gender fluidity, etc. Their theoretically ideal candidate would be a queer black drag queen like RuPaul, but they know they need someone more mainstream, like Michelle Obama, who has insisted convincingly time and again that she has no interest in political office.
As things currently stand, this leaves the desperate Dems with no one but Pete Buttigieg – gay, but still a white male – and crazy-eyed radicals like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Cory “Spartacus” Booker, or Gretchen Whitmer – weak options, but better than Kamala. 2028 is shaping up to be the beginning of an eight-year JD Vance White House.
Follow Mark Tapson at Culture Warrior