Why do you think Biden had such a low opinion of Harris? VP candidates usually come from the pool of failed Presidential candidates. Do you have some cite that Biden felt strongly that, say, Buttigieg or Booker had brighter long-term prospects than Harris, but still picked Harris for reasons?
For that reason quoted in the OP…
That is absolutely how her campaign was viewed at the time, rightly or wrongly. That is not how Buttigieg or Booker was viewed at the time. I am absolutely sure that was a big factor in his decision. And that is how the decision was viewed at the time too. Sure the calculus of a young mixed race women balancing an old white man was part of it, but that particular young mixed race women was chosen because she did not pose a threat to Bidens prospects of running for a second term.
I wasn’t a huge Harris fan either, but I’ve long wondered about what actually makes for a “good” Presidential candidate. Is it proven experience in some kind of large enterprise? Is it high level government experience? Is it some combination of the two?
I mean, VP is a pretty strong check-mark toward the high level and proven experience categories, as is being a Senator and AG of California. Would being a 20 year Governor of some dinky state like Nebraska be better? For that matter, being mayor of a similarly sized city be equivalent?
I mean, Bill Clinton was a arguably successful president, and he was governor of Arkansas, a state that’s neither populous nor wealthy, for two terms, and AG of Arkansas for five terms. To me, that’s not all impressive, because it’s Arkansas. California and the Federal government are totally different animals.
I don’t think Harris’ experience was out of line with other candidates, but she had maybe a bit less time in office. I think the far more damning thing was that after Biden’s abrupt exit, she was just sort of shoehorned in as the Democratic favorite. To a lot of people, the whole thing seemed pretty shady- first the Democratic party was pushing a (seemingly) doddering and senile Biden as the candidate, which seemed extremely dishonest, and then when he withdrew, they just pushed her as the favorite, without any of the usual primary stuff where they prove their worth and generally gain the approval of the party. Instead, it seemed like some backroom shenanigans were going on both with the early choice of Biden, and then when they were discovered, Harris was hurriedly put forward, which also seemed kind of shady.
Almost all Presidential candidates drop out before the first votes are cast, and all campaigns have “reports of internal division”. Those are not remotely reasons to disqualify anyone. Booker also dropped out before any votes were cast
You’re right, the OP was not ‘who was the better candidate’. Mine was kind of a knee-jerk reaction, since I am so sick of hearing from various quarters that trump got reelected because Harris was not a strong candidate. A bucket of warm spit would have been more qualified than trump.
He actually kinda did, privately, though it wound up getting into the press in 2019. As per this U.S. News & World Report article from 2019:
Of course, he never publicly stated, “I will only serve one term,” and once he was in office, he clearly changed his mind, and decided that he needed to run for re-election.
Yup but his campaign was not viewed that way at the time. And that might be sexism. But the established wisdom in summer of 2020 was that Harris was a “weak” candidate. This speaking as some who thinks she actually did a really good job as candidate in 2024 showing incredibly good political instincts and made all the right calls, but was basically dealt an impossible hand.
But in 2020 she was chosen because Biden did not consider her a threat. And I blame Biden for that. He should have chosen the strongest possible candidate that he thought had the best chance of beating Trump in 2024.
Anonymous sources talking to Politico is not something I’d take terribly seriously. If anything, it could have been an attempt by the Biden campaign to deflect concerns about his age by implying that he wouldn’t run again, without making any actual promises that could be held against them.
OK, well, this just seems like “Many people are saying…” And even if the consensus of Extremely Online People was that Harris was a weak candidate, that doesn’t prove that Biden himself agreed with the consensus.
Besides which, no incumbent VP has challenged their boss for the job since 1832. That’s just not a thing that happens, and there’s no reason a Presidential candidate would even consider that in making his decision.
I think that this is exactly what it was. He didn’t say “I will be a one-term president,” but he and his campaign certainly and intentionally implied it.
Though again this was not a regular election cycle, both Bidens age and the presence of Trump, made it unprecedented. I don’t think he was worried his VP would challenge him in the primaries, I think he was worried a qualified VP would increase the pressure on him to agree not to stand again.
Though that’s how election campaigns are run of course. Actual facts rarely intrude on the campaign. It’s all about perception and what “many people” think about the candidates.
Nate Silver recently published an article (paywalled) arguing that Harris has “Liz Cheney Syndrome”: both progressives and moderates see her as being further removed from their views than she actually is.
Sure. My personal experience was not that Harris was more widely criticized than anyone else for running a particularly bad primary campaign, but it depends on where you get your news.
Did she win? Obviously not. That has to be a mark against.
Was the the best Dem candidate who could be mobilized on such short notice? Absolutely, without a question. The highest-profile alternatives discussed at the time have turned out to be slimy, fence-sitting centrists.
Is she qualified on general principle? Yes, she’s held elected office at many different levels.
Is she as good as Obama or Bill Clinton? No, but few are. She’s better than John Kerry or Hillary Clinton, in my book.
Why did she lose? There was a tide of anti-incumbent sentiment focused mainly on post-COVID inflation, that took down incumbents all over the world, not just in the US. Additionally, you had legacy media in the tank for Trump in ways that would’ve been shocking 4 years ago, and you had Elon Musk not only buying Twitter and turning it into a MAGAphone, but literally out there in Pennsylvania writing million-dollar checks to likely voters. Brazenly illegal, incredibly corrupt environment.
It’s a crazy concept for some folks to wrap their heads around, but sometimes the better candidate doesn’t win. That doesn’t mean they aren’t better, it means the conditions were bad, or the media environment was bad, or the voters were bad, or some combination of the above.
Yes, many voters are dumb and make bad choices. It’s gauche and inadvisable for candidates and parties to say that, but it’s simply true. We have voters who think Obama had a legislative majority to codify Roe or appoint SCOTUS justices, who also think Biden could’ve saved it somehow via a magical executive fiat.
When people believe nonsense things that betray total ignorance of how our government operates and is constituted, the only candidate capable of winning is one who lies fluently and comfortably, and is well-versed in media manipulation. And guess what happened in 2024!
You could very well argue that if success means lying about who you are, being a slimy fence-sitting centrist, then a “good” candidate would do that in order to win. But if Harris had done that, I think we’d still be here talking about whether she was really the best candidate, because nobody would be happy with her. And moreover with the House and Senate in the hands of Republican nutsos, a slimy centrist would either end up impeached or being a slimy collaborator, and I know where I’d put my money.
Sigh. For some strange reason, you seem to have decided that we are on opposing sides, which is weird, as I don’t think we have interacted much at all outside of this thread.
Please reread the last paragraph of my OP. I haven’t even decided yet if she was a below-average candidate. I just repeated some of the arguments on that score to see how convincing an argument people found it.
Has this thread turned into a huge “No True Scotsman” exercise? Seems a lot like that to me.
Harris (or anybody else) couldn’t have been a strong candidate because a strong candidate would have a lot of experience, but also be an outsider, but also inspire voters, but also not screw up by losing to a Trump, but also doesn’t eat their haggis with a knife and fork.
Combining the qualities described by different posters, I don’t see the possibility any such human being actually exists
I can definitely see the “Scotsman” argument, so maybe this would be more helpful.
Let’s compare Harris to a previous “average” Democratic presidential candidate instead and use that as a metric to determine if she was above average or not.
Al Gore would probably be a pretty good approximation I think. He came within a whisker of winning but still lost, so we are still comparing two candidates who both lost.
That is an interesting perspective. If you wouldn’t mind, since it is behind a paywall could you summarize in 2 or 3 points why he thought that? I personally didn’t view her as too conservative but maybe i am not Progressive enough to be in the category of people Silver is talking about.
Thing is, Trump got elected because he’s a liar and a horrible person in multiple ways. Not in spite of, because of.
Outside of race and gender Kamela wasn’t “below average” in the qualities that actually mattered, because the Democrats just don’t field people like Trump in the first place. People don’t care about experience or are actively hostile to it. They care about things like “will they hurt brown people?”, “are they stupid?”, “will they persecute women?”, “are they are rapist?”; with “yes” being the “above average” answer in all cases. An “above average” candidate would have never made it past the Democratic primaries, because to qualify they have to be the enemy of the great majority of the people who vote there.
In other words as has been already said, the problem was ultimately the voters; not Kamela being “below average”. When the voters want monsters, the Democrats were never going to field an “above average” monster. She was a bad candidate because she wasn’t a bad human being.