WHY KAMALA HARRIS FAILED
On December 3, 2019, Kamala Harris, once a front-runner for the 2020 Democrat nomination, dropped out of the race for president. This development was not entirely unexpected and I myself, prior to the Fifth Democrat Debate, predicted that Harris would drop out before the Iowa Caucus. Still, this was a staggering fall for a woman who just a few months prior was rising in the polls and had won over potential voters with her strong performance in the first Democrat Debate.
Harris’ first debate performance helped launch her near to the top of the race, but it also was the key reason for her ultimate downfall. Taking down Joe Biden, over his past positions on minority busing, in the first debate certainly provided Harris with a temporary boost in the polls. However, this boost was short lived and led to Harris making several non-traditional enemies. Enemies that squeezed her campaign out of the 2020 race.
On July 5, 2019, Kamala Harris was in second place in the Democrat primary. She was registering a healthy 15% of the vote in polling and her first debate takedown of front-runner Joe Biden was clearly resonating with voters. Harris had also drawn an impressive 20,000 people to her presidential kickoff event and raised an impressive $1.5 million in just the first 24 hours of her campaign. All signs were pointing up for Harris, but the work was far from done. It was imperative for Harris to next begin to control the narrative of the Democrat campaign and take some of the media oxygen away from Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg.
Controlling the narrative of any campaign is necessary for victory. Having control of the narrative involves determining the policy initiatives in play such as health care, race and gender. By controlling the narrative, a candidate essentially gets to choose the issues that the media talks about and thus put in front of the everyday voter. Donald Trump was elected president in 2016 by controlling the narrative from start to finish. The major issues of the 2016 campaign all included the promises and red meat that Donald Trump proposed. Kamala Harris not only failed to control the narrative, but she tripped over it several times.
For an unknown reason, Kamala Harris could not stay consistent in her health care proposals. Harris constantly flip flopped on her health care position and voters could not figure out whether Harris was for or against abolishing private health insurance. It seemed as if Harris would change her proposal each time she stepped in front of a new audience. Harris’ hand raise at the first Democrat Debate exemplified this. After raising her hand to indicate she supported abolishing private insurance, Harris quickly backtracked the next day to say she wanted to keep private insurance. This inconsistency prevented Harris from being able to take the mantle on a key policy issue and control its narrative.
Harris’ inability to control the narrative on any policy or campaign issue meant that she was a non-factor in the period between each debate. Generally, Harris would have a strong debate performance which would boost her in the polls. These boosts would quickly disappear, however, since she was near invisible to voters in the down time between debates. The voters she was not invisible to were several non-traditional groups who would squeeze Harris from both the left and right.
One of these groups was a small minority of progressives who vehemently opposed Harris’ record as Attorney General of California. In particular, these groups opposed Harris’ policies on criminal justice reform and her refusal to demand DNA testing in several cases. DNA testing which may have freed wrongly convicted prisoners. While small, this group of progressives opposed Harris from the very start of her campaign and were especially active on social media. These progressives somewhat effectively cut off Harris’ support from the left and kept her from being able to appeal to further left activists.
The second and somewhat lesser known group of individuals that squeezed Harris were fellow presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard and her supporters. Shortly after the first debate, Gabbard took to social media and television to criticize Harris’ takedown of Joe Biden. Specifically, Gabbard criticized Harris as being an opportunist and insinuating that Joe Biden was racist. Gabbard also condemned Harris for bringing up an issue, such as busing, that took place forty years ago.
Immediately after these criticisms, Gabbard’s bizarre support base of white male libertarians and internet trolls, took to social media to attack Harris. While Harris’ takedown of Joe Biden had nothing to do with Tulsi Gabbard, Gabbard launched another attack against Harris’ record as Attorney General during the second Democrat Debate. In particular, Gabbard criticized Harris’ tenure as being heavy handed and for also prosecuting low level drug offenders. The combination of these attacks critically damaged Harris’ perceived strength, which was her record as a "progressive prosecutor".
Gabbard’s criticisms of Harris’ record as Attorney General helped create an unusual alliance between liberal progressives and libertarians on the issue of criminal justice reform. With Harris lacking cover from the progressive left, Gabbard’s libertarian army of white men and trolls began to brutally attack Harris and her positions. Harris was now being squeezed by both the right and left and her lane to the presidency began to narrow as a result.
Harris was forced to return closer to the center, which she also found to be tough sledding. The attacks on Joe Biden caused there to be a lot of ill will towards Harris especially from more moderate Democrat voters. Many Democrats, especially baby boomers, just want to see Donald Trump defeated and removed from office. Attacking Joe Biden, whom many still believe to have the best chance of defeating Donald Trump, was seen as unnecessary.
At the time of the first debate, in June 2019, Harris was only somewhat known. A large number of Democrat voters were still forming their opinions of her and many Democrat voters, were turned off by her rehashing of an issue that took place about forty years ago. Harris’ attempt to sell merchandise off her Biden attacks didn’t help her standing either.
The combination of these factors led to Harris facing a deadly problem in that she was running out of campaign funds. Harris had aggressively expanded her campaign early on into Iowa and New Hampshire. Aggressive expansion is needed to win in a presidential campaign, but it must be sustained with a consistent influx of funds. Wealthy candidates, such as Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg can self-fund, but most candidates are completely reliant on donations.
Harris raised $12 million in each of the 1st and 2nd quarters of 2019 and $11.6 million in the 3rd quarter. While the donation numbers were steady, they were far from enough. Harris’ campaign surely anticipated, and spent their dollars with assumption that they would bring in a larger amount of money as the year progressed. The issue with this thinking is that Harris failed to increase her fundraising numbers. This left her with a campaign that was budgeting for many millions more than they actually possessed. Harris as a result could not pay her bills and was forced to end her campaign.
Kamala Harris was forced to end her campaign due to her financial woes, but the seeds of those woes had been planted at the first Democrat Debate. The pushback from an unlikely alliance of white male libertarians, progressive activists and Democrat moderates helped depress Harris’ ability to fundraise. This lack of increased fundraising ultimately ended Kamala Harris’ presidential aspirations.
Despite her withdrawal from the 2020 campaign it is highly unlikely that this is the last we see of Kamala Harris as a national player. She is still the Junior Senator of California and she will remain near the top of the list as a potential Vice-Presidential nominee. It would not be a shock to see Harris join in on a ticket with Pete Buttigieg, Bernie Sanders or even Joe Biden despite their checkered past. 2020 wasn’t the right time for Kamala Harris to become President, but she still has a bright future ahead of her in the Democratic party.