42

Kamala Harris’ bid for the presidency, despite initial hopes for a historic breakthrough, ultimately faltered due to a series of critical missteps. The Vice President, who made history as the first woman of color in the role, was unable to forge a distinct identity in the race and suffered from a lack of support among key voter demographics. When it became clear that former President Donald Trump was poised for a resounding victory, it was evident that Harris had failed to connect with enough of the American electorate to overcome the challenges she faced.

Struggling to Differentiate from Biden

One of the most significant challenges Harris faced was her inability to separate herself from President Joe Biden, under whom she served as Vice President. While she tried to position herself as a candidate of “new leadership,” her ties to the Biden administration, particularly during a period of declining approval ratings, were a significant obstacle. The administration’s handling of inflation, rising costs, and immigration issues at the southern border had become focal points of criticism, and voters weren’t ready for a continuation of those policies.

In one of the more telling moments of her campaign, during an interview on The View, Harris was unable to clearly explain what she would do differently from Biden. When asked about potential differences in their approach, Harris stammered, “Not a thing that comes to mind.” This moment—turned into a viral Trump campaign ad—showed just how closely Harris remained tethered to an unpopular administration, and her failure to establish her own political identity was a significant vulnerability.

Weak Support Among Key Voter Groups

The core of any presidential campaign lies in its ability to unite the party’s base and expand its appeal to swing voters. Harris, as the first woman of color to run for the presidency, had the potential to energize Black and Latino voters—two of the Democratic Party’s most important constituencies. However, her campaign failed to gain significant traction among these groups.

While Harris still garnered a majority of Black voters (86%-12%), her performance among this group was weaker than Biden’s 92%-8% margin in 2020. Similarly, while she carried Latino voters by a 53%-45% margin, this was a sharp decline from Biden’s 65%-32% win among Latinos in the previous election. Moreover, Harris struggled to secure urban voters in battleground cities like Philadelphia, Detroit, and Milwaukee, where she was unable to replicate the strong performance Democrats had seen in prior elections.

Harris also lost ground among suburban voters, particularly college-educated women, a group that had leaned Democratic in recent cycles. In Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, a Democratic stronghold, Harris defeated Trump by 23 percentage points, but this was down from Biden’s 26-point margin in 2020. The erosion of support in these areas signaled that Harris’ appeal was not broad enough to overcome the growing divide between urban and rural voters.

The Focus on Trump

Harris’ strategy of framing the election as a referendum on Donald Trump became another critical miscalculation. While it’s common for campaigns to contrast themselves with their opponents, Harris’ relentless focus on attacking Trump ultimately backfired. She increasingly described Trump as a “fascist” and warned of the dangers posed by his unstable leadership. While such rhetoric may have galvanized her base, it did little to sway undecided voters or attract the moderate Republicans and independents that Harris’ campaign needed to secure victory.

Polling expert Frank Luntz criticized Harris for focusing too heavily on Trump rather than articulating her own vision for the future. “Voters already knew everything about Trump,” Luntz remarked. “They wanted to hear what Kamala Harris had to offer—her policies, her leadership style, and her plans for the country. Instead, her campaign kept the spotlight on Trump.” This misstep meant that Harris failed to effectively communicate her vision for the country, leaving many voters feeling uncertain about what she stood for.

The Abortion Issue Didn’t Drive Voter Turnout

One issue Harris tried to leverage was abortion rights, particularly after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. While she did manage to win women voters by a 54%-44% margin, this was a smaller victory than Biden’s 57%-42% performance in 2020. The issue of abortion, which had energized Democratic voters in the 2022 midterms, did not have the same galvanizing effect in the presidential race. This was a missed opportunity for Harris, as many expected her to lead the charge on reproductive rights, but the issue alone was not enough to carry her to victory.

Trump, on the other hand, was able to maintain his appeal among male voters, winning them by the same 54%-44% margin that Harris enjoyed among women. This gender gap and the shifting dynamics among female voters played a role in Harris’ inability to connect with key segments of the electorate.

A Lack of Political Identity

Perhaps one of the most glaring issues with Harris’ campaign was her lack of a strong, cohesive political identity. While Biden had decades of experience and a well-established political persona, Harris was largely untested as a presidential candidate. She entered the race after a lackluster performance in the 2020 Democratic primaries, where her campaign faltered early. Despite securing the Democratic nomination without facing significant opposition, Harris was unable to rally the base around a clear, unifying vision.

Her attempt to appeal to moderates by distancing herself from some of her more progressive positions taken during the 2020 primary only further muddied her political identity. She failed to distinguish herself as either a true progressive or a pragmatic centrist, leaving voters confused about what she stood for and who she was as a leader.

The Party’s Reckoning

In the wake of Harris’ loss, many Democrats are left asking whether the party made the right choice in nominating her. Should they have stuck with Biden for another term, or was there a better candidate who could have better navigated the challenges of a Trump rematch? As the party reflects on its future, the failure of Harris’ campaign will undoubtedly spark soul-searching about its leadership and direction moving forward.

For Democrats, this loss marks a second consecutive blow to female candidates running for president against Trump. In both 2016 and 2024, the party has fielded strong female candidates, only to see them fall short against a Republican opponent. The defeat raises critical questions about the party’s strategy and its ability to appeal to a broader electorate. Was Harris the right choice? Could another candidate have united the party and faced Trump with more success?

The answer remains unclear, but one thing is certain: Kamala Harris’ inability to resonate with key demographics, her failure to articulate a compelling vision for the future, and her ties to an unpopular administration contributed significantly to her defeat. As the Democratic Party looks ahead, it will need to reassess how it approaches future elections and whether it can forge a path to victory that connects with voters beyond its base.