










Why Kamala Harris was always destined to lose - New Statesman
























































 

 






 















 







 


New Times, New Thinking.



 














In this section
PoliticsCommentWorldIdeasCultureMagazineNewslettersState of the NationSpotlight on PolicyPodcasts








        Search    






Subscribe


Account 


My profile
Sign out






Sign In








My profile
Subscribe
Sign out


Subscribe 
Sign In




















        Search    



Home

Politics

Back to all sections
UK
Scotland
Wales
Northern Ireland
Polling
Media
Brexit
Society


Comment
World

Back to all sections
US
Europe
Africa
Asia
Australasia
Americas
Middle East
China
India


Ideas

Back to all sections
The Ideas Interview


Culture

Back to all sections
Books
Film
TV
Music
Radio & Podcasts
Theatre
Goldsmiths Prize
Art & Design
Q&A
Food & Drink
Nature
Poetry
Fiction
Sport


Magazine
Newsletters
State of the Nation
Spotlight on Policy

Back to all sections
Economic Growth
Sustainability
Healthcare
Tech and Regulation
Reports
Spotlight Marketing Solutions


Podcasts













Explore the NS
Newsletters
Archive
Podcasts
Video
Events
Featured writers
Goldsmiths Prize
About us
Partners












Latest Magazine




                Subscribe Today             
















Comment



23 October 2024


Why Kamala Harris was always destined to lose
Despite the hype, there is no way the vice-president could have done all that was needed in the 100 days she had.

By
                    Megan Gibson 








Photo by Ryan Collerd / AFP via Getty Images






















Has Kamala Harris run a bad campaign? If she wins the election on 5 November, many of the dubious choices she’s made over the past three months won’t seem ill-advised, but strategic. If a majority in swing states such as Pennsylvania and Wisconsin vote for her, then perhaps her decision to court the approval of Republicans like Dick and Liz Cheney and institutions like Goldman Sachs won’t be seen as deluded, but discerning. Or if Arab-Americans in Michigan turn out for her in large numbers rather than staying home on election day, then her decision not to campaign forcefully for a ceasefire in Gaza won’t seem cowardly, but canny. And if enough undecided voters choose Harris out of fear of what a second Trump presidency could do to American democracy, then her endless talk about the threat her opponent poses won’t seem desperate; it will seem shrewd.
But Harris is not winning. The polls – despite all the money (her team has raised as much as $1bn over the past three months) and hype that buoyed her early campaign – have remained stubbornly static in recent weeks, with Harris tied with or slightly trailing Donald Trump. Across the swing states – in addition to Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, the other hotly contested states are Georgia, Nevada, Arizona and North Carolina – the picture is worse. Even in the battleground races where she’s ahead, such as in Nevada, most polls are so close that they are within the margin of error. More alarming for the Democrats is that, historically, polls have undercounted Trump’s support in key states. As election day nears, the realisation that Harris could lose is spreading across her party, the media and the electorate. One senses low-level panic among the Democrats’ high command.
How much does that come down to her campaign? I think that’s the wrong question. We should be asking: did Harris ever really stand a chance of winning? 
 
From the moment 81-year-old Joe Biden began his disastrous performance in the televised debate against Trump in Atlanta on 27 June, the Democrats’ chances of winning bottomed out. What had been whispered about inside the Washington Beltway was now obvious for all to see: Biden was far too old and diminished to win a debate, let alone contest an election and serve another four years as president. While the party privately panicked, his inner circle initially said he had a cold, and then blamed jet lag for Biden’s inability to stage a credible debate. It took another month of febrile speculation and intense pressure from party heavyweights such as Nancy Pelosi before Biden finally dropped out of the race.
And yet the mood at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in August was euphoric. Harris, as the new candidate, was celebrated. The Obamas gave jubilant speeches. Oprah Winfrey made a “surprise” appearance and traduced Trump in her address. Where once the vice-president had been derided as ineffective, she was now being hailed as the party’s saviour. The pundits and strategists who had spent the previous six months castigating anyone who dared to suggest that perhaps Biden was too old to serve a second term rallied behind Harris. The party faithful seemed to believe there would be zero consequences for swapping out one candidate for another three months before election day. The Democrats – high on their own supply of self-regard and sheer relief at having a candidate who could speak in full sentences – were too willing to ignore some inconvenient truths about the race.
But the fact remained that Harris had just 100 days to raise hundreds of millions of dollars; organise hundreds of campaign events across seven crucial swing states; craft a coherent policy platform that was not only plausible but inspiring; sit down for dozens of face-to-face interviews with local and national media; and convince voters that she was competent, trustworthy and likeable.
There was no way that Harris – or any other candidate – could have conceivably done all this in a presidential race as tight as this one. The US is as polarised as it has ever been, and the outcome was always going to come down to a few thousand votes across several states. And as much as liberals deride Trump as a buffoon and demagogue, he is a formidable candidate. He has captured the Republican Party, and the Maga movement is hegemonic in conservative politics. The only person to have beaten him convincingly in a debate, apart from Biden in 2020, was in fact Harris on 10 September when the two had their one and only televised head-to-head, in Philadelphia.




Subscribe to The New Statesman today for only £1 per week 
Subscribe


And yet, she is not winning. As much as I hope to be proved wrong over the coming weeks, I never thought she would. In the post-mortem analysis of her campaign once the election is over, many will be quick to cast blame. Most of it will be directed at Harris. Would another candidate – the largely unpopular governor of California Gavin Newsom, say, or the low-profile but respected governor of Michigan, Gretchen Whitmer – have run a better campaign? Perhaps. But they would have faced the same overwhelming challenges as Harrisand on an even more truncated timeline.
The truth is this election was lost long before Kamala Harris became the candidate. The blame lies with Joe Biden and his grasping inner circle.
[See also: Has Kamala Harris blown it?]


Listen to the New Statesman podcast











Content from our partners




Securonomics? Don’t forget UK agriculture



 Spotlight 






The future of exams



 Spotlight 






Skills are the key to economic growth



 Graham Hasting-Evans 





Related

 
US 
The legacy of “pro-life” abortion bans is death






 
Society 
Of course Rishi Sunak is English






 
Comment 
An ode to female friendships









Topics in this article :  
Democrats , Kamala Harris , Presidential election 2024 























This article appears in the 23 Oct 2024 issue of the New Statesman, The crisis candidate 
















                    
                        Megan Gibson
                                            

@MeganJGibson


                        Megan Gibson is executive editor, foreign, of the New Statesman.                    



























More from this author
        See All



  

Megan Gibson 
This is Donald Trump’s ceasefire 



  

Megan Gibson 
Gabriel Sherman: “Donald Trump is older and less sane and angrier”  






More of this topic

 
Society Of course Rishi Sunak is English



 
Comment An ode to female friendships



 
Media JD Vance’s “free speech” hypocrisy


 

Recent Podcasts


 
Insight podcast Did JD Vance boost Germany’s far right?



 
Culture podcast How the Sunshine State became the centre of power



 
You Ask Us Are MPs turning against Assisted Dying?


 










New Statesman
About us
History
Help Centre
Contact us
Advertising & Partnerships
RSS
 

Social

FacebookInstagramTwitterLinkedIn



Legal
Privacy policy
T&Cs
 

New Times 
New Ideas 
New Statesman© 2025 Progressive Media Investments 


 






 








































This sounds like desperate fascist wishing lol. The weakness being projected by the right is remarkable.