I don’t see it. She lost. Losers don’t get nominated. It doesn’t really matter why she lost, but i think she did not run a great campaign, personally.
This feels very aggressive but not particularly coherent or analytical.
People who lose usually don’t run again. I would say Harris and her supporters will make the argument that because she had to takeover with 100 days to spare, that her campaign was damage control, that next time it would be a national campaign with her own HQ, strategy, and people and not her just having to inherit Biden’s.
I guess this is a legit topic in this thread, since she is clearly running again. So, I’ll add my voice to those who thought she ran a good campaign. Good energy, good messaging, good personality. Her loss to Trump says more about the American voters than it does about Harris and her campaign. (I know you have to deal the voters you have and not the voters you wish you had, but if they are such fucking dimwits that they thought Trump was better than Harris, I honestly don’t know what she was supposed to do about it.)
Then you shouldn’t run, either. Because we need someone who can run an effective campaign against bigotry and hatred and crony capitalism.
I think people who pay attention to politics have a misconception that there is some combination of buzz words and slogans that can win an election. When almost every cycle is decided by vibes
Harris won by something like 8 points with people who were actually paying attention in the election and lost by 12 with people who weren’t.
Basically every presidential election hinges on someone who can’t tell you what either candidate’s platform is and whose (mis)understanding of politics is Republicans are national defense and economy guys, and Dems are abortion and environmental guys.
The flaw in that argument is that the reason she “had” to take over on short notice is that the Administration she was part of tried to conceal the President’s growing inability to do the job until it blew up in their faces. Let’s nominate someone who won’t remind the voters of that particular betrayal of trust.
This feels like inside baseball stuff that will not move the needle. Keep in mind voters handed the country back to a man who tried to coup the government. Anyone who sees the GOP triple down on everything that caused them to lose in 2020 and go on to win in 2024, can’t possibly think the non scandal of Biden being old is worth self flagellating for.
If age and infirmity actually mattered to the electorate Harris would have beaten Trump in a landslide. (And Biden would have been polling ahead of Trump too)
I think voters, including Democratic party voters, are and will continue to be in a very anti-establishment mood, which means a prior VP and Prez nominee like Harris will have a big disadvantage.
I agree. I think the voters will want someone who hasn’t lost, someone who isn’t associated with an inflationary time, and who is charismatic.
Those people will vote the way they plan to vote no matter who runs. There aren’t enough of them to determine every election, because we do see both parties winning from time to time. So it’s the other voters that a nominee needs to appeal to.
I think when candidates reject an endorsement from Harris and basically say “stay away” we have our answer to how non-viable a 2nd run is likely to be. A big disadvantage to be sure.
I think Kamala Harris did as well as she could have possibly done. I remember breathing a big sigh of relief when I heard that Biden was dropping out and Harris was taking over. She had money, momentum, excitement, an endorsement from Taylor Swift! But for all that, she couldn’t get across the finish line. So if she runs again in 2028, what is she going to bring this time that will be different from last time? Someone upthread said she’ll have more time, less of Biden’s people, etc. so her campaign will be structured differently. Is that why she lost? Not enough time? How long does it take to convince someone Trump doesn’t have their interests at heart? And if that is the case, what is she doing now? I don’t hear about her. I don’t see her on the news. She’s kind of faded into the background. But by 2028 she’s going to figure out how to win over the people she didn’t quite appeal to last time around? This is the political equivalent of reheating stale food. It’s not going to turn out better than when it was fresh.
Sadly I am 100% in agreement with everything you said.
It’s an interesting article that lays out a variety of perspectives. Although it begins by making the case for her candidacy, the second half of the article sets out a series of caveats.
The fact that Trump was able to lose an election by a wider margin and come back and win the presidency in 2024 (while running a historically grotesque, boring, and shambolic campaign) kind of points to the fact that the person in the opposition party (still eligible to run) with the highest name recognition can do very well against a successor candidate running in the shadow of an unpopular incumbent.
In 2028 it would likely be Rubio or Vance bearing the weight of another national crisis, but with none of Trump’s weird durability. Harris would have many of the advantages Trump had in 2024, and would likely have picked up a lot of those disengaged voters who went against her last time. (Hell, many of them will have convinced themselves they actually voted for Harris)
Now the one caveat I’ll add is Kamala never had very strong head to head (general election) numbers in 2020. If she did, she might have pushed Biden out after demolishing him on the debate stage. If 2028 polls show Ossoff or someone else who has a chance at pulling southern primary voters to them, significantly outperforming Harris, it’s a whole new ballgame.
Politics is often cyclical. What failed in the past may succeed in the future.
I think that a certain number of voters like a winner, and having lost just four years before is a negative. So is close association with the Biden administration. Every candidate has some weaknesses, but Harris’s seem to me above-average.
However, there are other ways to look at it. If voters are fed up with Trump’s excitement, a somewhat boring return to normal may be just what is needed. Stale food is better than what’s stinking up the place, or something new that you fear being inedible.
Now, there probably is a better middle of the road candidate than Harris. As I’ve said before, we have a bunch of possible candidates who have a proven ability to win in a purple state. Someone a little boring and stale with a history of winning in a purple state the same year Trump won there may be a safer choice.
That headline misleads the true story-
Mary isn’t seeking endorsements from anyone from the Lower 48 – her focus is and always will be Alaska,” a Peltola spokesperson said in a statement to KTUU that invoked a term for the contiguous US. “That’s why she’s proud to have the endorsement of [the American Federation of Government Employees], the Alaska [American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations], the Alaska [International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers] Local 1547 and more than 10,000 Alaskans who have signed up to volunteer with the campaign.”
Now the MAGA candidate did go all out in attacking Harris-
The campaign was right to be concerned because Peltola’s Republican opponent almost immediately used the email to try to tie Peltola – a moderate Democrat whose campaign has focused on Alaskan issues rather than party politics – to Harris. “Kamala Harris supported the Biden administration’s disastrous anti-Alaska agenda, which is why Alaskans rejected her by double digits,” Nate Adams, a spokesperson for the Republican incumbent Dan Sullivan, said in a statement. “Alaskans can see exactly whose team Mary Peltola and Kamala Harris are on, and it isn’t Alaska’s.”
Of course Biden had no “disastrous anti-Alaska agenda”. 
Yep, many candidates branded as “losers” came back and won.
7 posts were split to a new topic: Democratic Party Official Position is to Abolish ICE
Moderating:
Do you see how you’ve all moved on to an entirely new topic? This is an interesting discussion in its own right, so I’ll move these posts to a new thread. But please, try to stick to the topic at hand, and be proactive in starting new threads when needed. Thanks.
OK now y’see, if you want to support my campaign, support my campaign. But if it’s going to mean you invoke my name in fundraising for yourself, ask first. This was unnecessary.